Wisdom and grace see in that modest look  
truth's triumph errors downfall in this book   
Maerebunt piscatores  Isa. 19.8. Tocksonus sculp●●●   

THE ANSWER UNTO The Nine Points of Controversy, Proposed by our late Soveraygne (of Famous Memory) unto M. Fisher of the Society of JESUS. AND THE REJOINDER Unto the Reply of D. Francis White Minister. With the Picture of the said Minister, or Censure of his Writings prefixed.  
Be ready always to give an ANSWER to every one, that asketh you a reason of the Hope, that is in you.  1 Petr. 3. Vers. 15. 
Permissu Superiorum, M.DC.XXVI.   

TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE CHARLES KING OF Great Britain, France, and Ireland etc.  
MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN, These Theological Labours, which we now publish, were undertaken by Order of our late Soveraygne of Famous Memory, for his desired Satisfaction about some of the principal Points, which withheld his Royal joining unto the Church of Rome. The Author when he penned them, did expect they should have been kept within the private Library of his Princely Reading, and not made public to the World, as afterward they were by a Doctor Minister, together with a Voluminous Reply, wherein he seeks to disgrace them, by much bitterness of speech, uttered in the violence of his Zeal.  
This imposed an Obligation upon the Author, to review them again, and to set them forth whole and entiere, purged from the faults of hand-writing misprision; cleared from the clouds cast upon them by ignorant Cavil; strengthened with some new Collateral Additions of more evident Explication and Proof. Which Labours renewned & published, we humbly offer unto your most Excellent Majesty, as unto the Heir, not only of your Renowned Father's Dignity and State, but also of his Wisdom and Virtue, in whom is perpetuated, as the Nobility of his Blood, so the Excellency of his Mind.  
And though it be their hard fortune to appear in your Presence at the time, when the light of your Royal Clemency is towards your Catholic Subjects eclipsed; yet for themselves, they confide to find some special Favour, not to be forbidden, or banished your Majesties' Dominions, in that they be Natiffe of your Royal Father's Command, by the Warrant of his Authority borne into the World, whose Sacred Pleasure, through pious Excess of Filial Affection, You still reverence after his Disease.  
Neither can it be for the credit of our Adversaries, or of their Cause, that free Access should be denied unto these Writings, which (as themselves testify) were by the sound of Authority summoned unto the Combat, upon supposition, that thereby, Our weakness, and want of strength would manifestly appear. For thus they writ: The better to discover their weakness, 
D. Whites Preface.  & to pluck them out of their Fox-hole of Personal Succession, and visibility, the King imposed the Task of writing upon the Nine Questions, knowing our Adversaries to be cunning, and subtle in eluding our Arguments, but of no strength, especially in particular Questions, to prove their own Tenet, or to confirm their Faith by sacred Scripture, or Ancient Tradition.  
If after so solemn Invitation unto the Combat, if after so bold Promises that in these Writings, our weakness would be discovered, if after so great assurance given to their Credents, that we cannot confirm our Religion by Scripture, these challenged Writings be stayed by Authority, not to enter into the Field; this may yield unto judicious Protestants just reason to suspect, that weakness and want of strength, rather lieth on their side; and that the Patrons of their Reformed Religion, place their confidence of Victory, rather in the Partiality of the State, then in the Evidence of the Scripture, in the behalf of their Doctrines.  
And, as these Titles, even the Credit of the Protestant Cause, plead for the free permission of this Book: so the Book itself contains nothing that may cause the hindrance of so due a favour. Therein no person in Authority is censured, no matter of State touched, nothing uttered that may justly offend; only the evidence of God's Holy Word is urged, in defence of that Religion, which even in your Royal judgement, is so fare from being impious in itself, or an Enemy of your State, as You have by most happy choice selected the same to be the Consort of your Crown, to be the Parent of those glorious Stars, which (according to the hope of all Loyal Subjects) shall from your Majesty's Throne, by long continued Succession, shine unto these fortunate Kingdoms: who by her ever-honoured Name of MARY, but much more by the rare Excellency of her Virtues, lively represents the sweet Memory of your Right Glorious Grandmother, whiles she lived, for Princely qualities the Paragon of Europe, and now a singular Ornament of the Heavens, in regard of her constancy in the Catholic Roman Religion unto death; that her enraged Enemies, not being able to conquer her Immortal Affection unto the same, feared not to shed her no less Innocent, then Noble Blood, the Fountain of Your Majesties' Royal Rights unto the Kingdoms of Great Britain, to strike of that Thrice-Venerable Head, more Glorious for the lustre of the One Catholic Faith She maintained, then for the shining gemnes of Three Christian Crowns, of which, two She wore, and the third was undoubtedly her Due.  
Your Royal Magnanimity, timely tokens whereof appeared in your tender Years, hath engaged the Hearts of your Loyal Subjects, in a secret joy of Hope, that God by means of your Majesty, will illustrate this Kingdom, by many rich Blessings of Temporal Glory. In which Hope we are strengthened by the fortunate Name of Charles the First: fortunate I say, to bring Felicities upon Kingdoms; under, & by which Name, 
France under Charles the Great: Spain under Charles, the fifth Emperor, but the first of that Name King of Spain, surnamed Maximus.  the two mightiest Kingdoms of Europe advanced to Imperial Dignity, grew unto the highest of worldly Greatness. In which respect it is not any disloyal Affection, that we wish in our Hearts, and pray unto the Soveraygne MoModeratour, in whose hands are the Hearts of Princes, that he will incline your Princely Hart, to be favourable unto that Religion, which only hath been Conquerant in former ages; that hardly can any Christian King be named Renownedly Victorious, that was not a Professor, or a Favourer thereof. Yea, if we call to mind the most famous & wonderful victories that have ennobled the Christian Name, we may find, that they were fruits, and effects of some Devotions of the Catholic Roman Faith questioned, & proved in this Treatise.  
Constantine the first Christian Emperor surnamed the Great, who doth not know that his Conquests were obtained by his worshipping 
Euseb. in vita Constantini lib. 3. c. 2. Zozom. l. 1. cap. 8.  the sign of the Holy Cross, being doubtless of a contrary Religion unto the Prime Religion-deviser of this age Martin Luther, who saith of himself, 
Luther. Tom. 1. Wittenberg. fol. 539.  If I were a Soldier, and should see in the field the Standart of the Cross, I would fly from the same, as from the Devil. For this Emperor still carried 
Euseb. l. 2. de vita Constant. c. 3· & 4. Salutaris passionis Christi Insigne, universum Exercitum perpetuò antecedebat.  the Standart of the Cross before his army in all his battles against Maxentius, Maximinus, & Licinius, putting therein assured confidence of victory, unto whom God gave miraculous success, and He, an example unto Christian succeeding Monarches, to prostrate the Imperial Purple before the said sacred Ensign, to adore thereby Christ their God. Wherein a chief Saint of that Age rejoicing, singeth this verse, 
— 
Prudent. lib. 2. contra Symmach.  jam Purpura supplex  
Sternitur Aeneadae Rectoris ad atria Christi,  
Vexillunque Crucis summus Moderator ADORAT.  
Imperial Purple now Christ's aid implores,  
The Soveraygne Lord prostrate his Cross adores.   
Theodosius, to whom likewise Heroical Worthiness hath given the title of Great, no doubt, but his so many great Victories, specially against Eugenius the Pagan Usurping Emperor, were won by his Devotion unto Saints, whose Churches before he went to that warlike Expedition, he did visit, 
Ruffian lib. 2. Histor. c. 33.  lying prostrate before their Shrines, craving the assured aid of their Powerful Intercessions. In the Enterprise, having in the first Battle lost the day, by the slaughter of a great part of his army that were Infidels, full of perplexity he spent the night in prayer in a Chapel on the top of a mountain, 
Theodor. lib. 5. c. 24. Vidit duos viros candido vestitu equis albis vehi.  and there having watched a long while fell asleep. In his sleep two men appeared unto him in white attire, mounted on white horses, bidding him not to fear, but the next morning presently upon break of day, to offer again the Battle, se Auxiliares ei, & Antesignanos à Deo missos, that they were sent of God to be the Protectors, and Leaders of his army, & that the one was john the Evangelist, the other Philip the Apostle.  
The Emperor upon this warrant the next day gave again the field to his Enemies, and 
Signo CRUCIS se muniens, signum praelio dedit. Oros. l. 7. c. 37.  making upon himself the sign of the Cross, began the fight, got a most memorable Victory through the divine assistance. For 
Theodor. Ruffin. Oros. & omnes Histor.  when the Enemies through their multitude begun to prevail, a storm suddenly blowing from the mountains driven their darts & lances back upon themselves, wherewith amazed, without further fight, they yielded; yea laying hands on Eugenius they brought him unto Theodosius captive, & bound in chains. The miracle of which Victory a Pagan Poet, who then lived acknowledging saith thereof, 
— 
Panegyr. in 3. Honor.  Aquilo de monte procellis  
Obruit armatas acies, revolutáque Tela  
Vertit in auctores, & turbine reppulit hastas.  
O nimiùm dilecte Deo, cui militat Aether,  
Et coniurati veniunt ad Classica venti!  
A Wind the Army felled with Northern blast,  
And Lance and Dart back on their Authors cast.  
O loved of God, for whom the Heavens do fight,  
And Winds at call employ commanded might!   
Honorius Son of the foresaid Theodosius obtained two wonderful victories to the astonishment of the whole world; the one in Africa, with an army of only five thousand, 
Sigon. de accident. Imper. lib. 10. pag. 160.  against the army of Gildo the Pagan Tyrant, consisting of seaventy thousand: the other in Italy, against Radagaysus the Goth, bringing with him an army of more than two hundred thousand, which was defeated, and wholly extinguished, not one Christian Soldier being 
August. l. 5. de Civit. c. 23.  so much as wounded; and this by 
Paulin. Nolan. de Sancto Felice, Nat. 12.  the virtue of Piety and Devotion unto Saints. For 
Paulin. in vita Ambrosijs.  Saint Ambrose, deceased some few years before, appearing unto the General assured him of the Victory, and taught him 
Oros. l. 7. cap. 36.  where, and in what manner he should order his army; thereby confirming the Catholic Doctrine, set down by S. Augustine as undoubted: 
August. de cura pro mortuis. cap. 15.  Sancti per divinam potentian humanis rebus intersunt; Saints, not by the force of Nature, but by the power of God, have care of human affairs.  
Theodoricke the Goth, though in opinion an Arian, yet by special divine instinct 
Nicephor. l. 16. c. 35.  a great Favourer, and Honourer of the Roman 
Act. Synod. Rom. sub Symmach.  Religion and Sea, by many famous victories conquered in short time the whole Kingdom of Italy, the which he many years peaceably enjoyed; 
Sigon. de Occident. Imper. lib. 16.  until in the end of his life, deflecting from his former Piety, to be a Persecutor of the Roman Bishop & Faith, he concluded his long happy reign with a dismal, and unfortunate death.  
justinian Emperor, filled the three parts of the world, Asia, Africa, and Europe with the Trophies of his Conquests, which he did ever 
Novel. 36. & 37. vide Baron. Anno Domini 533. & 534.  acknowledge as benefits bestowed on him, for his singular devotion unto the most Blessed Virgin, whose glorious Title of GOD'S MOTHER, he maintained against the Nestorians, by many Edicts, 
Procop. de Aedific. justin. orat. 4.  raising in Jerusalem, Carthage, and other chief Cities of the world sumptuous and magnificent Temples in her Honour: yea Narses his General by whom he expelled the Goths out of Italy, was so 
Euagr. l. 4. cap. 23.  devout to our Lady, that being to give the battle unto his Enemies, his wont was to spend the whole night before in Prayer, & in Invocations of her aid, whereby he obtained so great favours, as he was still 
Nicephor. l. 17. c. 13.  taught, and instructed by her appearing unto him, in what manner he was to manage the Field.  
Who hath not heard of the renowned Victory which Heraclius the Emperor won upon the King of Persia, with small forces against three mighty armies, rather by divine miracle then by human strength for the recovery of the Holy Cross, whereby God confirmed 
Rusticus Diaconus contra Eutich.  the Catholic devotion then used without contradiction over the whole Christian world, 
Paulus Diaconus Hist. Miscel. l. 1. & Cedrenus de Imper. in Heracl.  to worship that most holy wood, & holy Images, the said Emperor causing the Image of our Blessed Saviour to be carried in all his Battles before his Army.  
Clodoveus the first Christian King of France, surnamed Belliger, what were his so many Victories, but Trophies of the now disliked Roman Devotion? When 
Gregor. Turon. (who did live about that time) l▪ 2. Histor c. 17. Hincmar. in vita Sancti Remigij. Aim●n. & alij.  he went in expedition against Alaricus the Arian, who had usurped Gascoigne, & other parts of the most Christian Kingdom, to prepare the way unto the victory, he offered Gifts, and Donaryes unto S. Martin, in honour of whom he also commanded none should touch any thing of the Country of Tours, but only water and grass for their horses. Against which Edict when one of his Soldiers had transgressed, he gave order he should be punished, saying, What hope of Victory, if we offend Saint Martin? Hence his Enterprise was so fortunate, & illustrated by wonderful events. A Stag went before his army, showing where they might wade over the River of Vienne, then so swollen with water, as it was not passable, but only in that place. Being in the field near unto Poytiers, where Saint Hilaryes body is honoured, 
Pharus ignea.  a Tower of light coming forth of the Church of the Saint, shined upon the King, whereby encouraged, he won a a most glorious day, slew the Heretical Usurper with his own hands, delivered the flourishing part of France from the Arian Tyranny. In his return acknowledging the Victory gotten by Saint Martin's intercession, he offered unto him his Warlike Palfree, whereon he had fought so gloriously, redeeming the same afterward with a Sum of money.  
Pepinus, who joined a great part of Germany that then was Pagan unto the Crown of France, had greater confidence of Victory in his devout Invocation of Saints, then in the strength of his Armies. Hence having in a fierce Battle with the Saxons, obtained a glorious Victory, his wearied and wounded Army being presently set upon by a fresh mighty Band of Infidels, 
S. Ludgerus in vitae S. Swiberts.  he lighting from his horse, prostrate on the ground, made a Vow unto God, and unto Saint Swibert, to visit his Relics with his whole army barefoot. Upon which Vow, straightways a wonderful light from Heaven shined over him and his Forces, that the Pagans terrified therewith, without fight yielded themselves, and their whole Country of Westphalia, to his Obedience.  
As almost all books be full of the Victories of Charles the first of France surnamed the Great; so likewise they make full Record of his singular Reverence unto the Roman Bishop, in whose defence he fought so many victorious Fields, specially against the Longobards, whose Irreligion towards the Chair of Peter the principal sea, the fountain of Christian Unity, wrought in the end the total 
Sigon. de Regno Ital. l. 3. & 4.  subversion of their Kingdom.  
After the Empire was translated from the Franks unto the Saxons, who more Va●iant and Victorious than Henry surnamed the Falconer, the first Emperor of that Stock? Being sick, and so weak as he could hardly hold himself on his horse, he durst in person go into the Field against the mightiest army of Huns that ever entered Germany 
Witich. l. 1. de reb. Saxon. Frodoar. Chron. Eccles. Rhem. Luitprand. l. 2. c. 8. & 9 Nauclerus in Chron. Gen. 31. à Christo nato. ; so many in number, and so confident in their forces, as they durst brag, they could not be overcome, except either the Earth should sink under them, or the Heaven's fall upon them. The King and his Soldiers fought valiantly, but prayed no less devoutly; the King making often Vows unto God to root Simony out of his Kingdoms did he win the day, the Soldiers often repeating Kyrie eleyson, Kyrie eleyson; by the devout ingemination of which Christian Litany, against the Hunnish Hui, Hui, Hui, they got the Victory: making manifest how great is the force of Prayer, though in a language not vulgarly known. For the victory was so Illustrious, as in respect thereof, the said Emperor became renowned, admired & honoured of all Christian Princes.  
Otho the Great, as in Piety and Devotion, so likewise for admired victories was nothing inferior unto the foresaid Henry his Father. He 
Witichind. lib. 1. Luitprandus lib. 4. cap. 11. & 12. Naucler. in chron. Generate. à Christo 32. part. 2. pag. 82.  much honoured the holy Lance made of the sacred Nails of our Saviour's Cross, by virtue whereof he overcame miraculously an immense Army of Hungarians who then were Pagans, & mighty troops of Rebels that were joined against him. Being on the one side of the Rhine, and the Rebels on the other, a few of his Soldiers, without his privity passing the River, fell into the Enemies hands. The Pious Emperor seeing them in distress, and not able to secure them, moved with compassion, prostrated himself (his whole Army doing the like) before the holy Lance with many tears, praying unto our Saviour whose Hands, and Feet had been pierced with those sacred Nails. No sooner was he prostrate on the ground, but presently the Rebels, no man knowing why, ran away, their hearts inwardly consuming with fear, so that many of them were killed, & taken prisoners by the aforesaid poor handful of men.  
Henry the second Emperor, Nephew to this Otho, was on the one side so Victorious, as he joined unto the Crown of the Empire the Kingdoms of Bohemia, Sclavonia, and Hungary; on the other so given unto Roman devotion, as he is a canonised Saint of the Roman Church. His 
Dithmar. lib. 6.  Religion towards Gods B. Mother was singular, in whose Honour he vowed, and kept his Virginity unspotted, together with Kunegundis the Virgin holy Empress his Spouse. When 
Godofred. Viterb. in Chronic. Cuspianus. Bonfin. de rebus Hungar. Dec. 2. lib. 1.  he entered into any City, his custom was to spend the first night praying in the Church of our Lady, if any were in the place consecrated to her Name. Hence in the battle he fought against Bolistaus King of Bohemia, the Holy martyrs Saint Laurence, Saint George, & Saint Adrian, sent by the Queen of Saints, were seen to go before his Army, 
Nauclerus à Christo gen. 34. part. 2. pag. 106.  carrying the Standart of the Cross, striking the Enemy with blindness; so that they not being able to behold, much less to resist the Emperor's forces, Bohemia was made Vassal unto the Empire, without any effusion of blood.  
About the same time the two renowned Normans Robert, and Roger, undertaking to free Sicily from the Tyranny of the Saracens, wherewith the same had been a long time oppressed, were constrained with small forces to 
Thomas Fazellus, de rebus Sicul. Decad. post. lib. 7. p. 397.  encounter an huge Host wherein were thirty thousand horse, and foot without number. In the heat of the battle Saint George was seen blazing forth glorious beams of brightness upon a white Steed, in a white Horsemans' coat, on which was sowed a Red Cross thereby encouraging the Christian Army, and driving the Enemy before him. Hence the Nation of the Normans conceived special devotion unto S. George, calling upon him in their Battles next after God; and with the Normans it is likely, the same devotion entered into England.  
In confirmation of this truth, how many Examples doth Spain afford of Victories gotten by Catholic devotions against the Saracens, who in the year 701. made themselves masters of the greatest part of that Country? None of their victories more famous than that obtained by the virtue of the Holy Cross, whereof they keep yearly a Triumphal Feast. The 
This history is written by Rod●ricus Archbishop of Toledo, who was there present. De rebus Hispan. l. 8. c. 10. Marian. de reb. Hisp. l. 11. c. 14, 15.  Mahometans, in a battle with Alphonsus' King of Castille, surnamed the Noble, having the better of the day, the Christian Army being almost put to flight, the archdeacon of Toledo full of Christian courage, having in his hands the Ensign of the Cross which he carried before his Archbishop (wherein also was the image of the Blessed Virgin) went therewith through the thickest of the Enemies without being hurt, though innumerable Lances & Darts were cast, and Arrows shot at him. By his example the Christian Army encouraged, returning with new fortitude to the Battayne, put the Saracens to flight, made massacre of them, who were so many, as the Lances, Darts, & Arrows left behind them in the field, could not be consumed with the many mighty fires made two days together, aswell in token of joy, as for other uses.  
More ancient, & no less wonderful is the Victory gotten against the same Infidels by Raymirus King of Leon and Galicia. He 
Ambros. Moral. & all other Historians.  having gathered together all the forces of his Kingdoms against these Mahometan Usurpers, being defeated, was brought to great distress & sadness. As he rested in the night, S. james appeared unto him, telling him that Christ had peculiarly committed Spain to his Tuition, that he should not fear, but trusting in God the next day present the Field to the Infidels, for himself would be in the fight. The King did as the holy Apostle ordained, who according to his promise, was seen in the Field upon a white horse, with a Red Cross on his breast, running upon the Mahometans, and putting them to flight. Unto 
Vide diploma Regis apud joan. Marian. in lib. de S. jacobi in Hispaniam adventu, in fine.  which Victory, not only the King in his Charter with many Bishops & Nobles of his Realm, as eye-witnesses give record, but even the Mahometan Histories make mention thereof.  
If I add unto these foreign Histories our domestical Victories, I should be over long, yet cannot I pretermit to touch one example in every Line and Nation of our Kings. Amongst the Britan's, none more famous than Prince Arthur, nor is any of his Victories more certain than that recorded by 
Beda lib. 1. c. 20. histor. Henricus H●nt●ng. R●nulph.  Venerable Bede, though without mention of him. The Picts and Saxons associating their forces, and invading the Britan's with a most dreadful Army, the Priests of the Britan's (holy S. German Bishop being Prince of the Choir) by singing Alleluia, & other Church-prayers, strooke such a dismal fright into the hearts of the Infidels, that abandoning their weapons and armour, they ran away with all possible haste: the miracle of joshua 
joshua c. 6.  his victory being renewed, when the walls of jericho fell to the ground at the sound of the Sacerdotal Trumpets; whereby also the Catholic Doctrine was authorized, that Church-prayers in a language not vulgarly understood, may be pleasing and effectual with God.  
In the Line of our Saxon Kings, who for the fight of many battles, for the obtaining of renowned Victories, more admired than King Alfrede? Which 
Asser. Meneu. in vita Alured Polidor. l ●. Gu●●el. Malmes. & alij.  Victories, so many and so great, he won by his devotion unto Saints, particularly by the assistance of Saint Cuthbert, who appearing to the King encouraged him unto that famous Battle, whereby the forces of the usurping Infidels were in a manner wholly extinguished.  
After the Conquest, (to say nothing of the Conqueror himself, whose vast and Valiant Enterprise was made fortunate by a Consecrated Standart 
Ingulph. Matt. Westmon. & alij.  sent him by Pope Alexander the second) I will only name King Henry the fifth, the mirror of Kings, in whom was summed together the whole perfection of all Catholic Military and Politic Worthiness. On the one side, who more renowned for Victories, than this Conqueror of France, which in the space of few years he brought in a manner wholly under his Obedience? On the other, who more Memorable for his Obedience to the Roman Sea, for his Reverence of Catholic Priesthood, for his care and respect of Churches, for his zeal against the Wickliffian Heresy, for his daily devout Invocation of Saints, for his going barefoot in pilgrimage unto Churches 
Titus Livius de vita Henrici. Thomas Walsing. Enguerant. Stow, and others. ? Two Monasteryes he built from the foundations, opposite the one to the other upon the banks of the Thames; that termed Bethleem for Religious men, this Zion for consecrated Virgins which should day and night without intermission pray for the happy Success of his Wars in France. He 
Nicol. Harpesfield Hist. Eccles. Anglic. saecul. 15. cap. 3.  spent, and commanded his Army to spend the night before the famous Battle of Agincourt in Prayer, in Invocation of Saints, in making their confession unto Priests, in doing penance for their sins; and in the morning before the battle every one by his order, put a piece of Earth to his mouth, to testify his desire (had there been opportunity) to have received the sacred Communion in one kind, as both the token did signify, and then was the practice. So that the Divine Providence granting so glorious a Victory unto so few, against 
Walsingham writes the French were an hundred & forty thousand, the English not above ten thousand.  so many, made as it were Proclamation unto the world, that these now questioned Roman Devotions, are acceptable unto him.  
In the 
Hecto● Boethius Histor. Scot fol. 196. Bucan. Histor. Scot fol. 48.  Annals of Scotland we read, that Guthran King of the Danes, in Baptism termed Athelstan, having subdued a good part of England, invaded Scotland. His army was so puissant, as therewith he environed Hungus King of the Picts, and Alpinius Prince of Scotland with their forces that came against him; denouncing unto them by one that had a loud and shrill voice, that not one of them should escape alive. The King Hungus after long prayer unto God and S. Andrew, being asleep, the said Apostle appeared unto him, bade him fight the next day with confidence in God & his aid. The battle was fought 
Crux decussata.  Saint Andrew's Cross appearing over the Scottish Army; the field won against the Danes; Athelstan slain therein; S. Andrew confirmed Patron of Scotland; his Cross made their Ensign; a famous Church built in his Honour, to the use whereof, and mantaynance of Canons therein, the King applied the tenth part of 
Deciman Regiorum praediorum partem.  his Royal Patrimony.  
The Greatest Battle that Scottishmen ever won, without doubt is that of Striueling against our Edward the second. The Scottish Histories say this King's Army did consist of an hundred & fifty thousand horse, and of as many foot; And though this may seem great exaggeration, yet our 
Thomas de la More in vita Edwardi 2. Numquam magis splendidus, nobilis, & superbus Anglorum exercitus visus. Stow anno Domini 1313. pag. 333.  English Annals testify, that never before was the like preparation, pride, and cost in time of war; the Soldiers even the night before the battle, bathing themselves in wine, casting their gorges, crying, shouting, vaunting, confiding in their forces as invincible. On the 
Hector Boethius Histor. Scot lib. 14 fo. 3.114. Thomas de la More ubi sup  other side the Scottishmen spent the night in confessing their sins unto Priests, in prayers unto God by the mediation of Saints, specially of S. Finan, whose sacred Relics they brought with them into the Field. In the morning, the King with his Nobles on the top of an Hill in the sight of his Army heard Mass, received the B. Sacrament at the hands of Mauritius Abbot, as the rest of the troops also did, at the hands of other Priests. The Mass ended, the said Abbot came down, & stood in the Front of the Army with the Standart of the Cross, which they all saluted falling with their bodies on the ground. The English imagining this was done in token that they yielded, soon found themselues deceived, & were taught by their overthrow an invincible Truth, That not Warlike preparation, not the multitude of men, not the courage of human Hart, not the forces of Arms; but true Catholic Piety, Confidence in God, Invocation of Saints, Worship of the holy Cross, humble Confession of sins unto Priests, devotion unto the most dreadful Mystery of the Mass, make Kings and Countries Victorious.  
By these examples continued from Constantine unto these times (unto which innumerable others might be added) Your Majesty may perceive, the Roman Religion to have been, as the means to assure glorious Victories unto Christian Princes; so likewise the public Christian profession, at the least, of all the last seven Ages. If this so ancient & victorious Religion be proved by the express Texts of Divine Scripture, so clearly that her Adversaries be forced to leave the literal sense, upon no better ground then because the same is beyond the capacity of their understanding, what more can be desired?  
Now this we have endeavoured to demonstrate, & hope to have fully performed the task, in the Treatise we here present, prostrate at the Feet of your Royal Clemency; humbly beseeching the sovereign Overseer, and Over ruler of Hearts, so to incline your majesties Hart to be favourable unto your Catholic Subjects, as he seethe their Hearts to be sincerely loyal unto you; ever desirous of your Royal Sovereignty; full of endeared Affection unto your Person, which from your Infancy hath grown together with the Increase of your Years; which hath waited every where on your Honourable Undertake, with hartyest prayers for the most desired success; still wishing that our CHARLES the first of England, may in the glory of Catholic Religion & Piety, in the Fame of Victories and Conquests, in the large Extent of Dominions, equal, yea exceed the former Worthies of that Name and Number, the GREAT and GREATEST: and after a long happy Reign, pass to be participant of an eternal Crown.  
Your loyal Subject, and Beadsman. I. F.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
TO the end (good Reader) thou mayst more clearly conceive the Scope of these Writings, I have thought fit, to give thee notice of some things, concerning the Answer unto the Nine Points, and of the occasion thereof.  
I suppose, thou hast heard of some Conferences about matters of Religion, which passed between M. john Fisher jesuit on the one side, and D. Francis White Minister on the other, for the satisfaction of an Honourable Person that was moved to doubt, whether the Protestant were the true Church. At the second Conference our late Sovereign King james being himself present, about the conclusion thereof imposed upon M. Fisher a Task of writing about some Questions of Controversy, and accordingly sent a note contaying Nine Points, with this title of Superscription: Some of the Principal Points, which withhold my joining unto the Church of Rome, except she reform herself, or be able to give me satisfaction, are these.  
This is the true Occasion of M. Fisher's writing, and the manner in which his Majesty proposed the said Nine Questions: whereby thou mayst discover the falsehood of the Occasion pretended by the Minister D. White, to save his own credit, and to discredit M. Fisher's Relation of the Conference. He saith, 
In his Preface to the Reader.  his Majesty having well understood of the jesuits Cretizing Relation, & of his dispersing hundreds of papers to his own praise, and to the disgrace of his Adversaries, THEREFORE made the proposition of the Nine Questions, that, the jesuit answering them, and the Minister replying against his Answer, a public testimony might be extant, whereby men might judge of the sufficiency of the one, and insufficiency of the other. This is a Tale feigned upon the finger's ends of the Writer thereof. For (besides that the superscription of the Nine Questions showeth, his Majesty had another intention in proposing them) his Majesty laid the charge of writing upon M. Fisher, at the second Conference when he had dispersed no papers about the particulars of the first Conference; yea the said Relation was not penned, nor the penning thereof begun, when the Note of the Nine Points was delivered into his hands. So that it is a mere Fable, that his Majesty judged the jesuits Relation of the Conf●rences to be Cretizing and false, & therefore charged him with the obligation of writing.  
And in my judgement the Minister is not advised in confessing, that according to M. Fisher's Relation, his carriage in the Conference was most shameful, That a Schoolboy of thirteen years old, 
Preface to the Reader.  could not have been more unskillful, and childish. This Confession, (I say) cannot but be a stain to his Cause & Honour in the judgement of most men, the foresaid Relation being of such Credit, and in substance so exactly true, as none of the Honourable Audience disclaimed from it; yea, which is more, the Minister's Counter-narration ready and prepared, as he saith, for the print, durst never appear against it. Whereof no doubt the reason is, for that he saw that his printed narration must either be notoriously false, with danger to be proclaimed a falsifyer by the Honourable Audience, or else in substance agree with M. Fishers, which he doth acknowledge to be so much to his discredit.  
Again, the Minister (which was the cause M. Fisher published his Relation) had by word of mouth uttered vaunting reports of his own victories, and of his putting M. Fisher to a Nonplus, by arguments he never proposed; yea concerning Controversyes that were not touched. In his printed Narration, these triumphant arguments could neither have been well omitted, nor hamsomely set down. If he should have omitted them, his Credents would have been scandalised, perceauing he doth delude them by verbal Reports which he dares not utter in print. If he should have set them down, the Honourable Audience would have been offended to see the Cause (as they suppose) of Truth, maintained by such exorbitant Falsehood.  
This is the true Reason he is so silent in print about the particulars of the Conferences, only doing his endeavour to disgrace the jesuit in general terms saying, That he vanished away from before his Majesty with foil and disgrace, his Majesty telling him, he never heard a Verier 
Meaning a Fool or Ass.  etc. A report so false, as the Minister contradicts the same himself elsewhere, writing to the contrary, 
In his Preface towards the end: and Reply to the jesuits Preface initio.  That, by the second Conference his Majesty observed, that the Adversary was cunning, and subtle in eluding Arguments. For what more opposite to the Veriest Ass, or Fool, than one cunning and subtle? If his Majesty observed by that Conference, that the jesuit was cunning, subtle, acute in answering, how could he say of him, I never heard a Verier Ass? Thus men implicate themselves, that speak what they would have believed, without care of Truth. But in defence of the Relation, I need say no more, there being extant an Apology for the same in print.  
Now concerning the Answer itself to the Nine Points, M. Fisher having received the note, presently addressed himself to comply with his Majesties' Command, being encouraged thereunto by the Title, showing his Majesties' desire of joining unto the Church of Rome, could he be satisfied about some Points. And as he employed therein his greatest strength, so likewise he was careful to use the expedition that was required, achieving the Work in less than a month, though the same was not so soon delivered into his Majesties' hands. This expedition was likewise the cause, that he did omit the discussion of the Ninth Point, About the Pope's Authority to depose Kings. For being bound by the Command of his General, given to the whole Order, not to publish any thing of that Argument, without sending the same first to Rome, to be reviewed and approved, his Answer to that Point could not have been performed without very long expectation & delay. And he was the more bold to pretermit that Controversy, in regard that sundry whole Treatises about the same, written by jesuits and others, both Secular & Religions, had been lately printed: These Authors so fresh and new, he was sure were not unknown to his Majesty, nor was it needful that any thing should be added. Also knowing that commonly Kings be not so willing to hear the proofs of Coercive Authority over them, be the same never so certain, he judged by this omission, the rest of his Treatise might be more grateful, and find in his Majesties' breast less disaffection & resistance against the Doctrine thereof. Nor could he think, that his judicious Majesty, being persuaded of the other eight Points, would have been stayed from joining unto the Church of Rome, only in regard of the Nynth, Of the Pope's Authority over Kings; the Doctrine of the Protestant Church about the Authority of the people, and of the Common wealth in such cases, being fare more disgraceful & dangerous. And this forbearance is not, 
Reply pag. 571.  as the Minister objects, against the resolution of a constant Divine, or S. Bernard's rule, Melius est, ut scandalum oriatur, quàm ut veritas relinquatur. It is indeed, better that scandal arise, then Divine Verity be forsaken, by the denial thereof, or by not professing our Conscience therein, 
Reply unto the jesuits Preface initio.  when we are iuridically examined by the Magistrate; wherein even the Minister giveth testimony that the jesuit was not defective, but did fully and clearly declare his Faith about the Pope's Authority, his Majesty telling him, he liked him the better, in respect of his plainness. This notwithstanding, there is no man of Learning & Discretion, but will acknowledge, that a Constant Divine may put off the Scholastic Tractation of some Point of Faith that is less pleasing, until the Auditors, by being persuaded of Articles that do less distaste, be made more capable of the truth, towards which by disaffection they are not so prone.  
The other articles are largely discussed, and as exactly as shortness of time joined with penury of Books would permit. They be according to the Note, but Eight, yet some of them contain diverse branches, and so all together they amount to the number of fourteen: to wit, 1. The worship of Images. 2. The worship of the holy Cross & Relics. 3. That Saints & Angels hear our prayers. 4. That they are to be worshipped with honour superhumane, or more than Civil. 5. That we may & aught to invocate them. 6. That Repetitions of Prayers in a fixed number is pious. 7. The Liturgy lawful in a language not vulgarly known. 8. The Real Presence of Christ's body unto the corporal mouth. 9 Transubstantiation. 10. Merit. 11. Works of Supererogation. 12. The remainder of temporal pain after the guilt of Sinne. 13. That holy men by Divine grace may for the same make compensant, yea superabundant Satisfaction. 14. That superabundant Sati●factions may be applied unto others by the Communion of Saints. Before these is prefixed the fundamental Controversy of the Church; That men cannot be resolved what doctrines are the Apostles, but by the Tradition and Authority of the Church; About the sufficiency & perspicuity of the Scripture; About the Churches ●isible Unity, Universality, Holiness, Succession from the Apostles; That the Roman, is the visible Catholic Church whose Tradition is to be followed. So that in this Treatise a Sum of all the chiefest Controversies of this Age is contained.  
Concerning the manner of handling these Points, the Minister granting the jesuite showeth himself well versed in Controversy, addeth, 
In his Preface.  he is deficient of divine proof in every Article, and fare more specious including our Arguments, then happy in confirming his own. What reason he may have to give this censure of the Treatise I do not see, but only that he would say something against it, and no better exception occurred: otherwise it is clear, that in every Article the Answerer urgeth not only the Tradition of the Church, not only the consent of Fathers, but also sundry Texts and Testimonies of Scripture. And he doth not only (which is the Ministers trick) score Books, Chapters, Verses, without so much as citing the words, nor only doth he produce the words of the Text, but also refuteth the Protestant Answers, by the rules of interpretation themselves commend, by recourse unto the Originals; by the consideration of the Texts, Antecedent, and Consequent; by the drift and scope of the discourse; by Conference of other places, specially by the express Letter and proper sense of God's word. He showeth that Protestants pretending to appeal unto Scripture, interpreted from within itself, as unto the supreme judge, in very truth appeal from the express sentence of divine Scripture unto the figurative construction of their humane conceit. For in every Point of these Controversyes, they are proved to leave the literal sense of some Text of Scripture, without evident warrant from the said Scripture so to do, upon Arguments at the most probable, unto which themselves say, specious Answers are made, yea upon the Arguments that have neither substance, nor seemliness, neither form, nor speciosity in them.  
And this will be more clearly confirmed by the ensuing Confutation of the Ministers Reply, which against the Answer unto the Nine Points came forth at last after two year's expectation. He pretends that his Book being long before finished, & ready for the print, 
In his Preface.  he stayed that he might cite word by word the sentences of the Authors, quoted in his margin; that so his work might be more useful unto such as want the benefit of Libraries. Which excuse to be false his margins proclaim in innumerable places. I should rather think, considering the circumstances of the time (if his book was so long before ready) that another reason stayed the printing thereof. You may remember, that the Catholics of England by the Clemency of our late Sovereign during those two years had more calm days, and a season of some more freedom, than many years before they enjoyed. Whereby the minds of Protestants became more free & unpartial, more erected to understand the issue of the Controversyes between them and us, and less unwilling to see the Catholic Truth, which now they might with less trouble & danger embrace. Wherefore the Ministers book not daring to appear in these sunshine days of more sincere and unpassionate judgement, was by him reserved to be published, when the Sky should be darkened with the Clouds of Persecution, and displeasure, without which protection of darkness it would (perchance) never have come to sight. 
Even as deformed Birds the daytime lie  
Hidden in barns, in night abroad they fly.  For when former amity and peace with Catholic Princes began to be shaken, when the Parliament was hot in petitioning for a persecution of Catholics with uttermost rigour, then presently went the Minister's book to the press, and not long after (when the Decree for Persecution was enacted) came forth secure and joyful, 
Answer to the jesuits Preface. In fine.  chanting (as Sirens sing in tempests) certain verses of Ovid, extending by his Vote and Suffrage, the Persecution decreed for England, to the Roman Church fare & near.  
— Qua ROMA PATET fera regnat Erynnis,  
In facinus iurasse putes, dent OCIVS OMNES  
Quas meruere pati (sic stat SENTENTIA) poenas.  
And who shall with indifferency review the book, may find the same had good reason to fly the light, being every where full of afflictive Terms, and spiteful Inuectives, which can give no content, but only to minds dimmed with the extremest passion of dislike, who take pleasure to read not what may convince and convert, but what may grieve and gall the Adversaries. Wherein the jesuit hath some cause to complain, that his Answer being so moderate and temperate, without any sharp terms against Protestants, still excusing their Errors & Mistake, by the forwardness of their Zeal; he hath reason, I say, to grieve, that his Treatise written with such Charity, and Modesty, and this not upon his own pleasure, but enforced by his Majesty's Command, could not find in England a proportionable Reply, tending towards a calm clearing of the truth, but was set upon by fierce Reproaches, as if he had been urged to write for no other end, but that a Minister might have occasion to disgorge towards him, and his Religion, the bitterness of his gall.  
It is true, that with these reproachful discourses, the Minister hath mingled matters of substance, that is, all the principal Shifts devised by others, and which he could device himself, to give a show to his Religion, or to obscure the light and evidence of the Catholic; which had he set down learnedly and calmly, without the admixtion of so much rageful Impertinency, his Book had been of lesser bulk: Whereby also, one good piece of this Rejoinder might have been spared, to wit, the Censure prefixed before the same.  
My purpose indeed, was to have passed over his bitter Inuectives & large impertinencies with contempt, and only have touched what is really of substance: but the request of friends won me to the contrary. For they considering, that many be carried away to their perdition, not by the Minister's learning, but by their opinion thereof, thought it necessary I should prefix a Discovery of his Inside, in the beginning of this Rejoinder, as he hath placed a fair Picture of his Outside, with diverse glorious Emblems to his Honour, upon the front of his Reply. In which prefixed Censure, in every passage thereof matters of substance are handled; yet my principal drift is to make the same a Picture, wherein the Ministers Ignorance in all sorts of Sciences, & his falsifying of all kinds of Authors is set forth, not with the black Coal of bare verbal Accusation, ●ut with the lightsome and lively Colours of evident Proof: which that they may be more indelible, are oiled with commiseration of his blindness, and of his deceived Credents, that on him for their Salvation rely.  
In the Rejoinder, which is collaterally joined with the Text of the Answer unto the Nine Points, the matters of substance in the Ministers Reply, that indeed may breed doubt to men not perfectly learned, are refuted: The difficulty is not dissembled, nor shunned, the same is set down commonly in the Ministers words, with the whole force & pith thereof summed together, the Refutation presently following, not by the sole contradiction of words, but by the opposition of reasons. These, as they be ordinarily still of number, so I hope the Reader will find them to be likewise of weight, that pondering them, and comparing them with the Ministers, in the balance of unpartial judgement, he will easily see towards whom the doctrine not only of Christian Tradition, but also of the holy Scripture inclineth.  
If any wonder that this Treatise came forth no sooner the time being more than an year and a half since the Ministers Reply was printed; let him consider, that it was a good while after the printing thereof, before the same came to my hands, in regard of my absence & great distance from London. The book is huge and vast, that to read the same attentively time and disoccupation is required. The Vastness thereof was likewise the cause the same could not be confuted Verbatim (which had been easy) without making a Book as big as Calepine, with great and unnecessary charges; which also being so big, would never have found passage, and utterance in times of difficulty. Hence the Rejoiner was forced not only to read his huge Volume attentively, but also to choose and sum together what the Reply containeth of substance, severing the same from the dross of impertinent Reproach, which cost him both time and labour. Besides about the time this Work should have gone to the print above a year ago, they that should have concurred unto the printing thereof, were called to another place by their necessary occasions, and stayed away more than half a year; in which case we have not the choice of Printers, that Protestants enjoy.  
Of thee (Gentle Reader) in requital of my Labours I require no more, then that to the perusing of them thou wilt bring an unpartial mind, free from prejudicate opinion, raised by Pulpit-inuectives, and Popular Reports; free I say, from human regards, affected unto the Truth of Salvation, resolved when the same appears not to be kept from the embracing thereof through the fear of temporal dangers. If thy mind be thus indifferently & piously disposed, I do not doubt but after attentive reading, thou wilt give the same Censure of the Conferences and Disputations betwixt us and our Adversary, which Marcellinus pronounced of the Conferences betwixt the Catholics and Donatists, 
Augustin. in Breviculo Collat.  Omnium Argumentorun manifestatione, à Catholicis Aduersarios confutatos esse: That the Catholics are proved superior unto their Adversaries, by the manifest truth of all kind of Arguments.   

A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS AND PRINCIPAL Matters handled, aswell in the Answer, as in the Rejoinder.  
THE Preface to the Reader.  
An Introduction to the Censure, showing the vanity of the Pictures and Pageants displayed in the first two pages of the Ministers Book.  

CONTENTS OF THE CENSURE.  
Sect. I. Doctor White his Ignorance of Latin and Grammar, or else wilful going against the known Truth. pag. 9 

§. 1. S. Epiphanius words about Images interpreted against Grammar. pag. 10.11. etc.  
§. 2. His Grammatical Ignorance, about the words Accipite, Manducate, Bibite. pag. 12.13. etc.  
§. 3. His gross misprision in translating of Latin. pag. 15.16. etc.  
§. 4. About S. Cyprians teaching Transubstantiation, and the word Species. pag. 19.20. etc.  
§. 5. His abusing the jesuits words, against English Construction, to an impious sense. pag. 23.24. etc.    
Sect. II. D. White his gross and incredible Ignorance in Logic. pag. 30. 

§. 1. His fond accusation of the jesuit, as peccant against the form of syllogism. pag. 31.  
§. 2. Four Arguments by him brought, all foolish, & peccant in form. pag 37.38 etc.  
§. 3. His ridiculous Arguments to prove a divine Ordinance for Laymen to read the Scripture. pag. 43.44. etc.    
Sect. III. D. White his gross Ignorance of Theology. pag. 51. 

§· 1. His teaching that unto Ministers Religious Adoration is du●. pag. 52.53. etc.  
§. 2. That that cannot be the true Church which hath wicked Pastors. pag. ●6. 57. etc.  
§. 3. He professeth Infidelity about the Blessed Sacracrament. pag. 64.65. etc.  
§. 4. His gross Ignorance further discovered about the same. pag. 68. 69· etc.  
§. 5. His extreme Ignorance, about Satisfaction. pag. 72.73. etc.  
§. 6. His Ignorance about the Holy Cross, & Water of jordan. pag. 77.78. etc.  
§. 7. His Ignorance, About Traditions. pag 83.84. etc.    
Sect. FOUR D. White his Ignorance in holy Scripture. pag. 86. 

§. 1. He denyeth the Text, & context of Scripture. pag. 87.88. etc.  
§. 2. He is forced to go against Christ's express words. pag. 89.90. etc.  
§. 3. He is forced to deny the Creed. pag. 92.93. etc.  
§. 4. In answering Scriptures he contradicteth himself, & grants the jesuit the Question. pag. 95.96. etc.  
§. 5. In lieu of answering, he confirms the jesuits Arguments. pag. 98.99. etc.  
§. 6. He sends the jesuite to God for an Answer. pag. 101.102. etc.  
§. 7. His innumerable gross Impertinencies, in cyphering & scoring of Scriptures. pag. 104.105. etc.  
§. 8. He citeth Scriptures that make against him. pag. 108.109. etc.  
§. 9 Scriptures abused & falsifyed. pag. 112.113. etc.  
The Text of Matth. 24.24. That even the Elect shall be deceived were it possible, by him most grossly applied. pag. 116. etc.  
The Text Act. 17.11. About the Beroeans, abused. pag. 118.119. etc.  
The Text 1. joan. 18. If we say we have no sin etc. falsifyed. pag. 120.121. etc.    
Sect. V His Ignorance, Fraud, & Falsehood, in alleging Fathers, and all manner of Authors. pag. 125. 

§. 1. Seven Testimonies of S. Augustine about Scripture & Tradition falsifyed. 127.128. etc.  
§. 2. Seven Testimonies of other Fathers falsifyed. pag. 134.135. etc.  
§. 3. Fowl Calumniation & Falsification of Hosius, Bellarmine, Petrus à Soto, & Bosius. p. 143.144. etc.  
§. 4. Other Fathers impudently falsifyed, as if they did aver, what they do most constantly maintain & prove. pag. 150.151. etc.  
§. 5. Gross Imputations, with manifest falsehood imputed unto Cardinal Baronius. pag. 153.154. etc.     

CONTENTS OF THE ANSWER, AND REJOINDER.  
THE Preface to King james. pag. 3.  
That the Roman Church is the only true Church. p. 3.  
A short Treatise concerning the Resolution of Faith, for the more full clearing of the ensuing Controversies about Tradition, Scripture, & the Church. pag. 15. 

§. 1. The Protestant Resolution of Faith declared. pag. 15.16. etc.  
§. 2. The former Resolution confuted by six Arguments. pag. 16.17.18. etc.  
§. 3. Concerning the light of Scripture. pag. 21.22. etc.    
¶ The second Part of this Treatise, About the Catholic Resolution of Faith. pag. 30. 

§. 1. The first Principle proved. pag. 30.31. etc.  
§. 2. The seeond Principle demonstrated. pag. 32.33. etc.  
§. 3. The third Principle proved. pag. 36.37. etc.  
§. 4. How the Church's Tradition is proved infallible independently of Scripture. pag. 38.39. etc.  
§. 5. The difference between Prophetical, and ordinary divine Illumination, by which Protestants Cavils are answered. pag. 41.42. etc.  
§. 6. The fourth Principle proved. pag. 44.45. etc.    
THE FIRST GROUND. 

§. 1. That a Christian Resolution of Faith is built upon perpetual Tradition, derived by succession from the Apostles. pag. 50.51. etc.  
§. 2. Concerning the Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture. pag. 61.62. etc. 

¶ How Catholics grant the same sufficiency to be in Scripture as Protestants do, and the true state of the Question about the sufficiency of Scripture, and of Tradition. pag. 63.64. etc.      
THE SECOND GROUND. 

§. 3. That there is a Visible Church always in the world, to whose Traditions men are to cleave. That this Church is One, Universal, Apostolical, Holy. pag. 70.71. etc.  
§. 4. The Properties of the Church proved by Matth. 28.20. pag. 82.83. etc.  
§. 5. That the Roman is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolical Church, from, & by which we are to receive the Tradition of Christian Doctrine. pag. 85.86. etc. 

¶ That the Protestant Church was not before Luther. pag. 85.86. etc.  
¶ That the Grecians were not Protestants in Essence. pag. 87.  
¶ That the Waldenses were not Protestants for Essence and kind. pag. 88  
¶ That Protestant's not being able to clear themselves to be the Visible Church by Tradition, do vainly appeal unto Scripture for their Doctrine. pag. 89.90. etc.    
§. 6. The Conclusion of this Matter, showing that Protestants err fundamentally. pag. 108.109. etc.    
THE NINE POINTS. 

I. Point, About worship of Images. pag. 123. 

§. 1. Worship of Images consequent out of the Principles of Nature and Christianity. pag. 125.126. etc.  
§. 2. That this Worship was ever since the Apostles in the Church, without beginning. pag. 142.143. etc.  
§. 3. The places of Exodus & Deut. with no probability urged against the Worship of Images by Protestants that make them. pag. 154.155. etc.  
§. 4. Inconveniences which may come by occasion of Images easily prevented and their utilities very great. pag. 158.159.    
THE SECOND AND THIRD POINT. 

II. Praying, & offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary.  
III. Worshipping & Invocation of Saints & Angels. pag. 172. 

§. 1. An Eleven Demonstrations that the Ancient Christian Church did ever hold Invocation of Saints, as a matter of Faith & Religion. pag. 173.174. etc.  
§. 2. Invocation of Saints not to be disliked because not expressed in Scripture. pag. 194.  
§. 3. Knowledge of Prayers made to them communicable, & communicated unto Saints. pag. 196.197. etc.  
§. 4. The Worship in spirit & Truth with outward prostration of body, due unto Saints. pag. 206.207. etc.  
§. 5. Praying to Saints not injurious to God's mercy, but rather a commendation thereof. pag. 211.212. etc.  
§. 6. Invocation of Saints, not an injury, but an honour to Christ the only Mediator. pag. 215.216. etc.  
§. 7. How it is lawful to appropriate the obtaining of Graces and Cures unto Saints. pag. 219.220. etc.  
§. 8. Concerning Oblations made to Saints. p. 223.224. etc.  
§. 9 The Roman Churches set-formes of Prayer, without cause misliked. pag. 226.227.      
THE FOURTH POINT. FOUR The Liturgy, & private Prayers for the Ignorant in an unknown Tongue. pag. 130.131.  
THE FIFTH POINT. V Repetitions of Pater Nosters, Aves & Creeds, especially affixing a kind of merit to the number of them. p. 241.242. etc.  
THE sixth POINT. VI The doctrine of Transubstantiation. 

¶ An Addition, proving the Catholic Real Presence, according to the literal Truth of God's word, against Ministerial Metaphors, Figures, & shifts. pag. 248. 

¶ §. 1. The Zwinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament. pag. 248.  
¶ §. 2. The Zwinglian & Caluinian Presence confuted. pag. 250.  
¶ §. 3. The Ministers Arguments against the literal sense of Christ's word, vain & idle. pag. 253.254. etc. 

§. 1. That the Real Presence of the whole body of Christ under the forms of bread belongs to the substance of the Mystery. pag. 260.261. etc.  
§. 2. Transubstantiation belongs to the substance of Real Presence. pag. 266.267. etc.  
§. 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers. pag. 271.272. etc.      
¶ A Refutation of the Ministers shifts to elude the former Testimonies of the Fathers. pag. 276.277. etc. 

§. 4. The seeming repugnances this Mystery hath with Sense, should incline Christians the sooner to believe it. pag. 290.291.      
THE SEAVENTH POINT. VII. Communion under one kind, & abetting of it by Concomitancy. pag. 305. 

§. 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancy proved. pag. 306.307. etc.  
§. 2. Communion under one kind not against the substance of the Institution of Christ. pag. 311.312. etc.  
§. 3. Communion under one kind, not against the substance of the Sacrament. pag. 315.316. etc.  
§. 4. Communion under one kind, not against Christ his Precept. pag. 319.320. etc. 

¶ The place of S. john, Qui manducat hunc panem etc. explicated, with an Answer to the Testimonies of the Fathers. pag. 330.331.    
§. 5. Communion under one kind not against the practice of the Primitive Church. pag. 332.333. etc.    
THE EIGHT POINT. VIII. Works of Supererogation, specially with reference to the treasure of the Church. pag. 334. 

§. 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared. pag. ibid. & 335.336. etc. 

¶ The Ministers Arguments, or rather Inuectives against this Doctrine of Merit, answered. pa. 347.348. etc.    
§. 2. Merit of works of Supererogation. p. 348.349. etc.  
§. 3. The Fathers taught works of Supererogation, and proved them by Scripture. pag. 352.353. etc.  
§. 4. The Doctrine of Satisfaction. pag. 358.359. etc.  
§. 5. Works, with reference unto the Treasure of the Church. pag. 362.363. etc. 

¶ The Ministers railing Arguments against the former doctrine, censured. pag. 372.373. etc.      
THE NINTH POINT. IX. The opinion of deposing Kings, & giving away their Kingdoms by Papal power, whether directly, or indirectly. pag. 382. 

¶ The Ministers fond Cavil, That jesuits honour not the King, as Soveraygne. pag. 383.384. etc.  
¶ His fond proofs of his Slander, that jesuits hold singular Opinions to the prejudice of Kings. pa. 385.386. etc.  
¶ His Fondness in Cavilling at the jesuits words, about the Temporal Sovereignty of Popes. pag. 389.390. etc.  
¶ His miserable Apology for Protestant's. p. 391.392. etc.  
¶ His Cavil against the jesuits special Vow of Obedience to the Pope. pag. 393. etc.      
THE CONCLUSION.    

Faults escaped in the printing.  

In the Picture, and Censure.  
Pag. 10. lin. 14. Christ read Christ's. Pag. 12. lin. 17. in mark. Ministry read Minister. Pag. 13. l. 2. in mark. conferunt read conferant. Pag. 16. l. 20. place translated, read place truly translated. Pag. 25. l. 19 pleasore read pleasure. Pag. 37. l. 7. are read were. Pag. 86. l. 19 now read new. Pag. 44. l. 3. this read his. Pag. 104. l. 16. of read in. Pag. 121. lin. 32. an read be. Pag. 132. l. vlt. dirive read drive.   

In the Answer, and Rejoinder.  
Pag. 4. l. 10. in mark. if read it. Pag. 19 line penult. in mark. seipsum read sensum. Pag. 24. l. 1. God. Though. read God, though. Ibid. l. 16. could, not read could not, Pag. 56. lin. 30. in mark. this read thus. Pag. 71. lin. 32. in mark. but must read but they must. Pag· 74. l. 16. in mark. do to prove read do prove. Pag. 80. l. 30. in mark. Votaies read Votaries. Pag. 81. lin. 32. Philip & in deal &. Ibid. l. 34. in innumerable deal in. Pag. 100 l. 1. & 3. suppositious read supposititious. Pag. 115. l. 16. in coll. read in loc. Pag. 119. l. 12. opinions read opinion. Pag. 129. lin. 1. Axione read Axiom. Pag. 32. l. 34. in marg. a positive read a positive precept. Pag. 141. l. 11. in mark Sect. 3. read Sect. 1. Pag. 142. l. 26. in mark. the argues read he argues. Pag. 144. lin. 21. viz. read verò. Pag. 145. l. 10. reliueth read relieveth. Pag. 152. l. 33. in mark Anthropomorphilaes read Anthropomorphitae. 177. l. 9 in mark. praebitur read praebebitur. Pag. 180. l. 22. wash await read washed away. Pag. 227. l. 5. if they deal if. Pag. 229. lin. 23. in mark. him that deal him. Pag. 141. lin. 9 reverend read renewed. Pag. 378. l. 22. satisfaction read (satisfaction) Pag. 396. l. 4. Royal read Royal. Pag. 399. l. 2. fallable read fallible.    

THE TRUE PICTURE OF D· WHITE MINISTER. Or, the Censure of his Reply unto M. Fisher.  
The Reason of this Title.  
THIS Short Censure is prefixed under the Name of your Picture, that the Rejoinder may correspond in proportion unto your Reply, the beginning whereof is consecrated by an Image of your 
(a) For he teacheth that Religious Adoration is due to Ministers. See the Censure Sect. 3. §. 1.  Adored Self, and with other glorious Giew-gawes in honour of your Book and Religion. Touching which I will say a word, that hereby the Reader may give a guess at the Truth, Learning, Discretion Modesty you show in your book, A good house (as saith 
(*) Bona domus ex limine debet agnosci. Ambros. De institut. Virg.  S. Ambrose) being known by the Frontispiece thereof.  
The Roman Orator rebuketh some ancient Philosophers, who made show to contemn human Glory, whereof in their hearts they were insatiably greedy; convincing their Hypocrisy by this Argument; 
(b) Cicero pro Archia.  Libris quos de contemnenda gloria scribunt, sua nomina inscribunt, Their books inscribed of the contempt of glory, are superscribed with their names, that they may be glorious. What then may we think of you, who in the book wherein you reject the Image of your Lord and Saviour, as 
(c) Reply pag. 21●.  no good, nor effectual means to breed godly memory, & heavenly desires, in this very Book, I say, even in the first Page thereof next after the Blanks, you have placed your own Picture, in as Lively, Lovely, & Venerable manner as you could device, that people gazing thereon, might by the aspect thereof, be moved with Love, with Veneration, with Devotion towards you.  
This showeth, that through a Vain glorious Humour you feel that Truth in your hart, which through want of Religious devotion, you 
(d) Reply pag. 214.  deny in words; to wit, that Honours done to the Image, are by the law and institution of Nature referred, and to be taken as done to the Person. And if this be so in a Minister, why should not holy Images, be good means of pious Devotion, and godly Memory, towards Christ jesus? Why should not men be moved to Religious Devotion by the Image of our Saviour crucified, aswell as by yours here painted, with all the Ornaments of a Ministerial Deane? By the Picture, I say, of the Son of God, suffering for man, not sitting in a curious wrought Chair as you do, but hanging on a Painful, and Ignominious Cross; not with a Velvet Cap on his Head, as you wear to keep in your Wits, but with a Crown of Thorns, which piercing into his sacred Temples let out his blood; not clothed in Damask as you be, but in the Purple of his precious Blood; not set forth with fine Ruffeb●nds and Cuffs, wherewith your wrists and neck be trimmed, to make your face look smug, and gracious to the eye of flesh, but full of rough blows, ●●ide sores, & bleeding wounds, which represent the 
(e) Credentibus ubique Sponsus pulcher occurrit, pulcher ad dexteram Patris, pulcher in manibus Matris, pulcher in Caelo, pulcher in Ligno, pulcher in Miraculis, pulcher in Flagellis. Augustin. in Psal. 44.  beauty of his Charity to the eye of the Soul.  
But herein you are pardonable, in that this Irreligious Vanity comes to you by 
(f) The like was done by Acacius that Enemy of the Roman Sea, as writeth Suidas. And by the Bohemian Protestant-Rebell Zisea, who having destroyed all holy Images, caused his own to be set up in every place. Aeneas Silvius Histor. Bohem.  kind. You imitate herein the Grand propagatour of your Ministerial Stock john Caluin. He having rejected the images of Christ jesus & his Saints, not allowing them so much as to be fit Books to instruct the Ignorant 
(g) Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. ●●. §. 1.  checking Saint Gregory for so affirming, As not brought up in the School of the Holy Ghost; Nevertheless he did dote on his own Image, and was most greedy of the tokens of Affection shown him by the same. Hence when sundry persons, specially the Damsels of Geneva 
(i) La via de Caluin. c. ●●.  to show their devoted Love to this their Arch-Prophet, wore his Image about their necks, directly upon their hearts, he took therein singular Content; so fare, as unto some zealous Ministers, and Godly Brethren that with show of dislike warned him thereof, he made this charitable Answer, The thing shall be continued in despite of you; if you like it not, turn away your eyes, otherwise let your hearts break with Enuy. Whereby it is clear that Ministers understand, & feel by the instinct of Nature, that Images are fit instruments to kindle and conserve Affection towards Persons Venerably represented; giving us just cause to suspect, that their condemning the use of Christ's Image by way of Religious Devotion towards him, proceeds not in truth (as is pretended) from their zeal against Idolatrous Worship, but because themselves alone by the means of their Images would take possession of men's Hearts.  
What is the reason that so many fond Images are daily invented, and vented in England in lying forms, no less Honourable to your Religion, then Disgraceful to the Roman, but that you know, that Images are the Books of the Ignorant, and weapons to expugn the hearts of the simple, either with love & affection, or by aversion and contempt? A Candle signifying the Light of your Gospel, is painted with a general Assembly of your Gospelers with great show of Piety about it, Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, Husse, Wickliff, Melancthon, Knox, Bullinger, Beza, Zanchy, & some other; A Devil, a Pope, a Cardinal a Friar in Vggly shapes, puffing and blowing, & casting holy water in vain to put it out. A fabulous vanity to delude Sots, seeing every man that is not a fool, may most easily know even by Luther's Confession, 
(k) Luther Tom. 7. Wittenberg. Anno. 15●8 lib. de Missaprivata & Vnctione Sacerdotum fol. 228.  that his light came not from heaven but from Hell, kindled by conference with the Devil, whose 
(l) Halitus eius prunas ardere facit. job 41.18.  breath made your dead coals to burn, so fare is he from going about to quench the fire of your Gospel. As for the general meeting of your Gospelers, sitting together in such a Concordious manner, they that have read their Writings know, that should they meet in truth, as they are made in your fancy (if their tongues be of the same temper as their pens) they would not sit so demurely, and peaceably as they are painted by you, but fall together by the ears, and to Cuffs, the one with the other, that (as saith your 
(m) Bilson de perpetua gubernat. Eccles. c. 16. Si linguae eorum similiter se habent ac calami, pluribus cer●è opus erit Pacis Custodibus ad pugnas praeveniendas, quàm Notarijs ad decreta eorum perscribenda.  Bishop Bilson) without doubt there would be need of more justices of peace to part the frays, ●●en of notaries to write the decrees of that Council. Hence the Painter not without mystery, and with great foresight hath made the Minister KNOX in the midst of this imagined Assembly, to signify, that if ever a General Council of your Reformers hap to meet, KNOCKS will be sure not to be wanting amongst them.  
I need not seek fare for the like examples of your Vanity, the very next Page after your Picture is sufficiently stored with such kind of stuff. Two Women there stand opposite the one to the other. That of the right side for your Gospel, that on the left for the Roman Religion. Between whom you have pictured four or five oppositions, which deserve to be noted being wise ones; in which shineth your skill in Mystical, or Symbolical Theology.  
The first opposition. Your Protestant woman hath a Sun of Glory about her head, to signify that she is 
(n) In SOLE posuit TABERNACULUM suum, id est, in manifestatione posuit Ecclesiam suam: Non est in oculto, non est quae lateat Quid Heretice fugis ad tenebras? quid latitare conaris? August. in Psal. 18.  seated in the Sun, ever in manifest sight, ever conspicuous to the world; so perpetually visible, that for more than 12. hundred years, to wit from the days of Constantine unto Luther, she was never seen in the world, as 
(o) Napier upon Revelat. pag. 168.  your Doctors confess, and the Motto you have set under her doth insinuate, Veritatem aperit Dies, Time discovers Truth; as who should say, the same was hidden until these later days of Luther. But seeing the Conference with the Devil whereby your Luther was illumined, happened at Midnight, as 
(p) Vbi supra. Media nocte expergefactus sum qua mecum Diabolus disputationem orsus est etc.  himself doth testify; me thinks not, Veritatem aperit Dies, but, Nox Nocti indicat Scientiam, according to the verbal sound, would have been the fit Motto for your Gospel.  
On the other side, the Roman Religion (poor Woman) is by you painted stark blind, with this Vnderscription, Error caecus. Perchance, you think she must needs be blind in respect of her old Age, having lived in open profession to the world, ever since the Apostles. This I might suspect to be your reason, did I not see that you attribute the same Papistical blindness even to the ancient and primitive Church. Luther affirms 
(q) Luther Tom. ●. Wittemb. lib. de seruo Arbitr. p. 434.  that the Fathers of so many ages were STARK BLIND. Another Protestant of great name doth profess, 
(r) Caelius Secundus Curio de amplitud. Reg. Christi l. 1. pag. 43.  That the WHOLE WORLD EVER almost since the Days of the APOSTLES, until this last Age, lived in darkness, BLINDNESS, and Ignorance. Your Archbishop of Canterbury doubts not to pronounce, 
(s) Whitegift defence pag. 472 & 473.  How GREATLY SPOTTED were almost ALL THE FATHERS of the Greek Church, and of the Latin also, for the most part, with the doctrines of Freewill, Merit, Invocation of Saints and the like; that NEVER SINCE THE APOSTLES, was there a Church so pure and perfect, as the Church of England is at this day. Wherefore we need not be angry with your painting our Religion stark blind seeing she could not be the Christian Religion of the ancient Fathers ever since Christ, were she not blind, in the foolish imagination of your fantastical Gospel.  
The second opposition. Mistress Protestancy is painted with her breasts open, her paps displayed, naked down to the girdle: You will say, this doth represent the naked Simplicity and Candour of Truth which your Religion loveth▪ No doubt that simple Truth is found in her, which holds Men may lawfully lie in behalf of her 
(t) Osiander Epitome Histor. centur 16. pag▪ 79●. Hā● regulam habent Caluinistae, L●cere pro gloria Christi mentiri.  Gospel, and that they can never lie enough in so good a cause. Might not I say more ●●uly that this more fitly represents, that the immodest Fashion of Women to go with their breasts naked, as now is the use, was by your Gospel brought into England; a fashion so odious in Catholic times, as even Strumpets durst not use it in public? Hence some may suspect this Levity & Lightness charactered by her attire, to be the cause of her great Belly, wherewith you seem to set her forth: Whereby also you may signify, that she is the offspring not of the Gospel of Christ, but of Vigilantius his Gospel, which was so religious & devoted unto carnal Fecundity, that (as doth testify 
(*) Nisi pregnantes viderint uxores Clericorum, infantesque de ulnis matrum vagientes, Christi Sacramenta non tribuunt. Hieron. lib. advers. Vigil. cap. 1.  S. Hierome) her Bishops would not order any Ministers, except first they saw their wives either to have great bellies, or young babes hanging at their breasts. Though perchance your meaning was by this Emblem, to express the blessing of Fecundity, which your Gospel enjoyeth in your Worships of the Ministry, who yearly fill the Parishes of the Realm with many novel Branches of your Leviticall Stock.  
On the other side, you have done a deed of Charity towards the Roman Woman in clothing her with modest attire from the crown of the head, to the sole of the foot: the Feet of your Religion being bare, to signify, perchance, that she is a barefooted Nun, or a great Practicant of going Barefoot in Pilgrimage, and of such Penitential works. And whereas you make the garment of our Church speack●●d with great variety of incised works, this doth not displease us, whatsoever your meaning may be. For this doth agree with the Emblem of the Christian Church, used by the Royal Prophet psal. 44. where she is described a Queen standing on the right-hand of the Fairest amongst the Sons of men, 
(u) Psal. 44.15.  Circumamicta varietatibus, clothed about with varieties; which varieties wrought on her garment may signify the great variety of Holy Heroical Works, practised by her Children, whereby she 
(y) Lex Domini immaculata convertens animas. Psal. 18.8. Isa. 59.6.  converts so great variety of Nations from Paganism unto Christ. Fron the attire of which kind of works, your Religion is as naked & innocent, as the Child newly borne, that of your endeavours in this behalf we may pronounce that of the Prophet, 
(x) Telae eorum non erunt in vestimen ū● opera eorum opera inutilia▪  The webs they wove will not serve for clothing, their works are unprofitable works. For your doctrines have no force to convert Infidels unto Christ, but only to pervert, & draw 
(z) Indocti & instabiles depravant Scripturas, in quibus sunt difficilia intellectu. 2. Pet. 3 16.  unstable Christians from his Church.  
The third Opposition. The Woman of your Religion is painted with a Royal Crown in her right hand, holding the same towards her breast, to show her affection unto Kings, whom she hugs in her arms (as the Ape doth his young ones) till she press them to death by extremity of love. This happened unto his Majesties' 
(a) Camden. Elizab. p. 458. Hunc lamentabilem vitae finem habuit Maria Scotorum Regina etc.  mother, who falling into the hands of your Religion, you held her so fast, you gripped her so hard, as you driven the breath out of her body, & made her Sacred blood run about her Anointed Shoulders. The Roman Religion in opposite, hath given her by your painting a Vizard, and is made to stand treading upon Crowns and Sceptres, to signify that she is by doctrine and practise a Deposer & Contemner of Kings. This Fancy would indeed be a Truth, could you prove that Wickliff, Luther, Caluin, Beza, Knox, Buchanam, Wittingham, Goodman, & the like 
(b) See Bancroft Danger. Posit. Whit. l. 1. c. 4. & l. 2. c 1. & Protestant's Apolog. preface.  were Roman Catholics. Or could you show that they were Papists, of whom 
(c) Beza Ep. Theolog. 68  Beza saith, putting himself in the number, What Churches should we now have in the world, had not this course been held, to wit, of erecting Churches by force of Arms, in despite 
(*) Protestant's have murdered five Catholic Kings, or Princes: They have deposed Nine from their Kingdoms wholly, or in part: They have set up their Religion at the least in forty towns by force of Arms, expelling the Magistrates, murdering Priests & Religious Persons, breaking down Images, and burning Churches: They have been at the least twenty several times in the field against their Catholic Soveraygnes, & six or seven times against their sovereigns that were present in person: All which may be proved by the testimony of Protestants, if the margin did permit. Read bancroft's Dangerous positions. Osianders' Epitome. Histor. Centur. 16. & the Protestants Apolog. Preface.  of Princes, and Magistrates? So plainly doth he acknowledge your Churches to have been every where planted, by treading under foot the Commands & Edicts, the Swords, & Governments, the Crowns, and Sceptres of Kings.  
The fourth opposition. The Protestant Gentlewoman holdeth a pillar under her left Arm, with a bough of palm in the same hand: whereas the Roman hath on her left hand a Chameleon sitting. Your meaning is, that you (forsooth) are strong & Constant in your Religion, but we weak & wavering ready to change for fear of persecution. Your Constancy indeed is known, that you are in your doctrines, as immutable as the Moon. In what point of Religion (saith 
(d) Andraeas Duditius. See Epist. Theol. Bezae. epist. 1. & 3.  an eminent Protestant) be they, that impugn the Roman Bishop, firm and constant? They COIN MONTHLY FAITHS, they are carried away with the wind of every doctrine. What their Religion is to day one may know, but what it will be to morrow, neither themselves, nor any mortal man can tell. And whereas you make this your Gossip to have on her left side the pillar of Religion, & on her right the Crown; could any thing be more fit to express your Church of England? For in her Religion Kings have the better & upper hand of God: the Apostolical sentence, We must rather obey God than men, is turned backward, her Doctrine is mutable with the Prince's pleasure; that she may be better resembled by a Weathercock than by a Pillar. For what constancy can she have, that prefers a Temporal Crown, before Christian Truth●▪  
The fifth Opposition between these two Women, is in respect of the Titles that are set over their heads; yours being termed, Veritas Vnivoca, and ours, Mendacium Aequivocum. Veritas univoca, being in English, Verity taught, by the professors thereof, with one voice, with uniform consent, I think the Reader will smile at your good Invention, that you could find no truer Title for your Gospel. For what more notorious to the world, then that your reformed Professors are Vnivocall in the doctrine they preach as divine truth, even as the builders of Babel were Vnivocall in language, after the division of their tongues? Unto the Roman Religion, which doth detest lying about any the least thing, which condemns Equivocal & Ambiguous speech in the affair of Religion, in matters of Bargain, in familiarity of 
(e) See the Treatise tending to Mitigation.  Speech, why do you term her Mendacium Aequivocum? Upon no other ground, but in regard she teacheth, that a Christian, to defend his life and goods from the Tyranny of Oppressors, may sometimes use ambiguous and reserved speech: A practice expressly allowed in Scripture, as 
(f) Gregor. in exposit. l. 1. Reg. c. 16. His verbis ostenditur, quòd Tyrannorum saevitia atque versutia quandoque est PIA FRAVDE deludenda: sic tamen Tyranni deludendi sunt, ut caveatur culpa mendacii. Quod tunc bene perficitur, cùm illud quod fit asseritur; sed quod fit, sic dicitur ut celetur, quia ex parte dicitur, & ex parte reticetur.  saith S. Gregory. The Scripture showeth, that the crafty cruelty of Tyrants is sometimes to be deluded by PIOUS FRAUD; so saving ourselves from their malice, that we tell not a Lie: which then is well performed, when what is done is affirmed, yet so affirmed, as what is done is also concealed, the thing being uttered in part, and in part not uttered, but retained in mind.  
I hope I have clearly discovered the falsehood & inanity of your Frontispiciall Emblems and Pageants which occasioned my setting this Picture before the Rejoinder, the rather also to make your Image perfect, and complete in the Entrance of both our ●ookes put together, that the Reader may behold in the one the Outside, in the other the Inside of your Venerable Self. If Caluin 
(g) Caluin lib. de scandalis.  said true of Ministers, Praeclarum quidem zelum simulant, they can make an excellent fair show of Zeal, I will not deny, but your Painters curious hand hath elegantly set forth your Outside. For he hath painted in your Face a fair show of Zeal, of Modesty, of Wisdom, of Gravity, specially in your demure look, Velvet cap, and grey Beard so combed and handsomely composed, as your Wife may seem to have had her fingar in the trimming thereof, aswell as in the setting of your Ruff.  
But, quid si intus excutias? What if we look into the Inside? Hear your Painters Pencil failed him, which defect some body, (perchance yourself) undertook to supply with his Poetical Quill, setting these verses under your Picture, and the Picture of your Book wearing a Crown, 
Wisdom & Grace see in that modest look,  
Truth's Triumph, Errors downfall in this Book.   
But this is not lively painting of your Inside to the eye, but only Verbal Assertion of your hidden Worth to the ear, which if one will reject as the fabulous conceit of a Poet, what can be replied? Or if you be Author of the Verses yourself, some perhaps will attribute these praises not unto Truth, but unto your Fawning, with over-favourable Fancies, upon your own Learning, Triumphing before the Victory, and usurping a Crown without right. What then shall I do? how may I set forth the true & undeniable figure of your Inside? Your 
(h) Reply pag. ●74.  self say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Speech and Discourse show the true shape & figure of a man, according to the mind. This is true. Hence a Philosopher when a Lad was brought unto him to be his Scholar said▪ Speak Child, that I may see thee. If one desire to know what stuff a 
(i) Similes estis sepulchris deal●atis quae aforis parent hominibus speciosa, intus vero plena sunt omni spurcitia. Matth. ●3. 27.  Sepulchre WHITE & PAINTED without, contains within, the way is to mark what savour comes out when the same is opened?  
Wherefore, according to the 
(k) Luc. 19.22.  Gospel ex ore tuo te iudico, I will judge you by your own mouth, & by the the words thereof delineate the Feature of your mind. Qualities of mind may be reduced unto two heads, Learning and Honesty; the one being the ornament of the Understanding, the other of the Will. Hence this your Picture, or Censure of your Book, containing five Sections, in the last of them your Honesty, in citing of all sorts of Authors, is discovered. The other four are employed to set forth the quality of your Learning in every kind of Science that belongs to a Divine. Whereby will appear what great reason you had to set this Inscription about your Picture, Effigies 
(l) The title of Doctissimus was given to Luther by the Devil in his night's Conference with him, as Luther ubi supra, doth re●ord.  Doctissimi Viri D. ni Francisci White etc. The Picture of the most Learned man M. Francis White, taking to yourself the Title of Learned in the superlative degree above other men. This Censure with the Rejoinder will also make manifest, how judiciously by way of prevention the jesuit in his Answer convinced your future Reply, & your rude quaxing therein against the Catholic Truth; that whereas you have made the jesuits Arm holding a net with a frog in it, if your Painter will in lieu of the Frog paint a Minister, he shall not need to change the Motto, Piscatoris rete habet Ranam, the Fisher hath caught in his net a Frog.  

Ignorance of Latin, and Grammar; or else wilful going against known Truth. SECTION I.  
TO begin with that kind of learning which Children are taught in the first place, and which is the key unto all other knowledge, I shall make manifest your gross Ignorance therein, by four Examples.  

The first Example. §. 1.  
THERE is a controversy betwixt you and your Adversary about the fact of S. Epiphanius, who writes of himself: 
(a) Epiphan. epist. ad joan. Hierosolym. quae est 6. inter Epistolas Hieron.  I found in the entry of a certain Church in the Village of Anablatha, in the Country of Bethel the image of a Man, pendentem quasi Christi, aut alicuius Sancti, nescio enim cuius erat, hanging as Christ's, or some Saints (for I know not whose is was:) when then I saw the Image of a Man to hang in the Church of Christ against the authority of Scripture, I cut the same 〈◊〉 pieces etc.  
The question is, whether this Image was Christ's 〈◊〉 some Saints, and not rather some profane man's, ●anging as Christ's, or some Saints. The jesuit 
(b) jesuit in the Reply p. 251. & ●5●▪  maintains that it was a vulgar & profane image not any sacred Picture. This he proves, first because Epiphanius urgeth the unlawfulness of this fact because it was the image of a man, When (saith he) ●●gaynst the authority of the Scripture, I saw in the Chur●● the image of a man. But there was no reason, why 〈◊〉 should urge the unlawfulness of this fact, in respe●● the image was of a man, had he not understood mere ordinary man. For otherwise it is so far fro● being against Scripture to set up in Churches the I●mage of a man, as by God's express order 
(c) Ezod. 25.34.  th● Cherubims were figured in the Temple under th● shape of Men.  
Secondly, it is a principle in Philosophy, Nullu● simile est idem, what is like to a thing, is not the sam● thing, without distinction. Epiphanius saith, the ●●mage of this man did hang as Christ, or some Saint that is, in like manner as such sacred images did 〈◊〉 to hang, Ergo, that image was not Christ's, or som● Saints, but the image of some profane man▪ hanging in the Church, as Christ's, or some Saints.  
You coming to answer your adversary, 〈◊〉 according to your custom, you enter into a com●mon place, and rail pag. 251. No testimony can be clear which Sophisters will not labour to pervert and 〈◊〉 otherwise what is clearer against Imageworship, than 〈◊〉 words of Epiphanius. It is lost labour to contend with me● qui sola pertinacia pugnaces neruos contra persp●●cuam veritatem intendunt, which upon sole perti● bend their uttermost force to gainsay perspicuous verity  
After this 
(d) Semoti● NUGIS locorum communium, causa, cum causa, res cum re, ratio cum ratione confligat. Augustin. de vtil. cr●d. c. 1.  childish declamation, commin● to answer the jesuites arguments, you skip over th● first, without any Reply at all. Unto the secon● grounded upon the word, quasi Christi, aut 〈◊〉 Sancti, you shape this solution.  
Epiphanius writing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translated by 〈◊〉 ad verbum quasi, is to be construed not by a note of ●●●parison, but of conjecture, or guessing in things we do perfectly remember, or know, as vidi gregem ovium quasi 〈◊〉, or, I saw a troop of horse, put case an 100 Thus you; showing what an excellent Grammarian you are. For I beseech you in what Grammar, or Dictionary did you ever read that quasi doth signify put case? And your English example, I saw a troop of horse, put case an 100 if it be brought with reference unto the Latin, vidi gregem ovium quasi mille, as a true translation thereof (as it ought to be, for otherwise why is it brought?) what Grammer-maister would endure a boy that should so interpret? I urge not your translating mille, an hundred, nor gregem ovium, a troop of horse, for this I know doth not much import; but your translating quasi, put case, which quasi doth no more signify, then mille doth an hundred, or ovis, a horse If a Grammer-boy having this English to be put into Latin: Behold a troop of twenty horse, put case they 〈…〉 hundred, let us set upon them; should thus translate▪ Ecce turmam viginti equitum, quasi centum, irruam●●▪ were not this senseless and ridiculous Latin? And yet the Latin were true, and ad verbum, if quasi did signify put case, as you say it doth.  
Wherefore quasi is still a note of similitude, which sometimes doth together imply doubting or conjecturing when the similitude is so perfect as we can 〈◊〉 no distinction. As in your example vid● 〈◊〉 ovium quasi mille, we signify, that the number of 〈◊〉 sheep is so near a thousand, as we cannot 〈◊〉 whether they be more or less. And thus ●●●phanius finding the image of a man hanging in the Church of Anablatha, with a lamp burning before it, saith, that it did hang as Christ's, or some Saints, tha● is, in such manner as he could not discern any difference betwixt the reverence given by that people unto it, & the reverence the 
(*) That images of Christ & his Saints were hanged up in Churches in that age of S. Epiphan. Hierom. & Augustin is evident, by Euodius Vzalensis▪ l. 1. de mirac. S. Stephani c. 4.  Church used towards the Images of Christ and his Saints. You may the● rail at your pleasure, but whiles you reply no 
(e) Seeing the Ministry grants this to be the clearest testimony that may be found in antiquity against the honouring of holy Images, the Reader may judge how poor & defectuous of solid proof Protestants are in this point.  better, even Grammer-boyes may see your adversary hath concluded you in a Capcase, which qua doth signify, as much as, put case.   

The second Example. §. 2.  
YOUR adversary pag. 487. doth defend that the words of Christ drink ye all of this, were spoke● to the twelve Apostles upon a personal reason be●longing to them only. This he proveth: First because when a word is ambiguous, the same is to be interpreted by another place speaking of the same matte● where the same word is used without ambiguity. I● this speech of S. 
(f) Matth. 26. vers. 39  Matthew drink ye all of this, it 〈◊〉 ambiguous, whether the word all, concern all me● or only all the twelve there present. S. 
(g) Mar. 14.23.  Mark speaking of the same matter, & signifying how tha● precept drink ye all of this, was accomplished, saith they drank all thereof, where all cannot be extende● further than unto all the twelve; Ergo, this place cannot with any reason, or by the rule of exposition 〈◊〉 further extended.  
Secondly, the words Accipite, manducate, bibian▪ were certainly spoken unto the same persons, and they run so together in rank that no man wit● probability can make the one outrun the other. But the command Accipite, (which signify tak● with your hand, for it is a precept distinct from manducate, which is take with your mouth) was given to 〈◊〉 Apostles only, not unto all the faithful▪ else we ●ust say, that all communicants are bound by divine precept to take the consecrated cup, or bread with their hands. Who ever heard of such a precept in the Christian Church?  
You being to make answer unto this grounded discourse, first, you keep your wont, and according to your 
(h) Qui loquitur maledicta stultissimus est. Prou. c. 10. Et nullus acriter impoperat Eccles. 18.18.  skill in Rhetoric ad captandum beneuo●●ntiam, to win our good will, set upon us thus with a Prefatory peal of reproach: That which S. Stephen spoke to the unfaithful jews; ye do always resist the holy Ghost, Act. 7.51. is verified in the Pharisees of Rome, for no light of heavenly verity is so illustrious which this generation, in favour of their own impiety, will not endeavour to cloud. Is it possible for any thing to be more evident for communion in both kinds, than this precept of Christ, Drink ye all of this: yet the sons of darkness, having renounced verity, and chosen the way of error, blunder and ●rope in the clear light, and, verba recta ac veritatis 〈◊〉 fulgentia, tortuosis interpretationibus obscura●●, & depravare moliuntur, as S. Augustine long since spoke of the Pelagians. Thus 
(i) You might have here remembered the saying of S. Hierom. Haereticorum machinae sunt, ut convicti de perfidia, ad maledicta se conferunt, super quo viderint quomodo illud audiant, Maledici regnum Dei non possidebunt. l. 3. advers. Ruffin. c. 11. &▪ lib. 2. c. ●●  you. So great a sin it is for us to expound the word of God against the fancy of a Minister, by conference of places, by consideration of antecedents and consequents, by the circumstances of the action, and by all other Christian allowed rules.  
Having thus railed, you approach to the jesuits arguments, & again skip over the first without any syllable of reply. In your solution of the second, grounded on the word accipite, take, to show both your Grammatical and scriptural erudition, you writ in this sort: The jesuit imagineth that all taking is with the hand, and thus he proveth himself to be neither good Grammarian, nor Divine. Virgil saith, illos porticibus Rex accipiebat in amplis, where accipio is to entertain. S. Paul saith, per quem accepimus gratiam. Rom. 1.5. By whom we have received grace and Apostleship. c. 8.15. Ye have received (accepistis) the spirit of adoption. The Angel said, joseph thou son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife, Matt. 1.20. His Bishopric let another man take, Act. 1.20. Thus you, very learnedly as you think; so that you dare accuse the jesuite as neither good Grammarian nor Divine. Give jesuits I pray you, leave to examine your learning before they yield that you be their master both in Grammar and Divinity, as you challenge to be.  
First, what blindness is it in you to say, that the jesuit imagineth that all taking is with the hand? Doth he not in this place most expressly say, men may take meat out of the hand of another, with their hand immediately, or with their mouth? He supposeth then, that there is other taking then with the hand; but proves in this text, take, eat, drink, that take must needs command taking with the hand, not immediately with the mouth. For (as he saith) in this text, take, eat, drink, take commands such a kind of taking of meat offered, as is distinct from eating thereof, and not involved therein: But to take with the mouth is involved in eating, and commanded therein. Ergo, in this text, take, eat, drink, take cannot be understood of taking immediately with the mouth, but with the hand.  
Secondly, If the jesuit were so simple as you make him seem, as to imagine that all corporal ta●●ng is with the hand, have you not very learnedly instructed him of the contrary, both out of Virgil, and Scripture? Virgil, forsooth saith, Illos porticibus 〈◊〉 accipiebat in amplis, the king entertained them in his ample Galleryes, where accipio is to entertain, Ergo, all corporal taking of a thing out of the hand of another, is not with the hand. The scripture saith, Ye have received grace, the Apostleship, the spirit of adoption, therefore all corporal taking is not with the hand. The Angel said to S. joseph, fear not to take Mary thy wife, ergo all taking is not by the hand: yea which striketh the nail on the head, it is written of judas, His Bishopric, let another man take. Might you not without taking so much pains to show your learning in Virgil & scripture, have proved, that all corporal taking is not with the hand, because men many times be taken with agues, and with death, yea some with Ministers wives. Verily should Deaneryes be given in England according to learning, this your discourse about taking, would deserve this verdict in the judgement of all learned ●en, His Deane-ry let another man take.   

The third Example. §. 3.  
WHAT shall I say of your gross misprision in translating, which shows your ignorance in Latin, or else your fraudulency & wilful impugnation of known truth.  
To prove, that General Counsels may err in ●ayth, you 
(k) Reply pag. 155.  cite this saying of 
(l) Cusan. lib. 2. concord. c. 6.  Cusanus▪ Notandum est experimento rerum, universale Concilium plenarium posse deficere; The true English whereof is, It is to be noted that a plenary Universal Council may f●ile in the experiment of things, or 
(m) deficere potest in experiendo. ibid.  matters of fact. You translate, Experience of things doth manifest, that a plenary Universal Council may be deficient. What grossness is this? Doth notandum signify manifest? what more manifest, though not noted by you, then that Cusanus 
(n) Docet Augustinus quomodo plenaria concilia per subsequentia Concilia corrigantur ob FACTI ERROREM ibid.  by experiment of things, means matters of fact? For his drift is to show, that former Counsels may be corrected by the later ob facti errorem, in respect of errors in matter of fact: otherwise in matters of faith, that plenary universal Counsels are INFALLIBLE, Cusanus doth 
(o) Si concordanti sententia aliquid definitum fuerit, censetur à Spiritu sancto inspiratum, & per Christum in medio congregatorum in eius nomine praesidentem, INFALLIBILITER iudicatum. ibid. c. 4.  hold, and prove in that very Book.  
To prove that all Heretics pretend not scripture 
(p) Orthodox. pag. 41. & 42.  you cite S. Augustine, as saying: All heretics read not scriptures; 
(q) August. lib. 7. in Gen. c. ●.  whose words in Latin be: Neque enim non omnes haeretici scripturas Catholicas legunt, nec ob aliud haeretici sunt, nisi quod eas non rectè intelligentes, suas falsas opiniones contra earum veritatem pertinacit●● asserunt. Which place translated proveth the contrary: For it is this, All heretics read scripture, nor are they heretics for any other cause, but that understanding th● scriptures amiss, they pertinaciously maintain their erroneous opinions against their truth. These words, neque enim non omnes haeretici scripturas Catholicas legunt, you translate, all Heretics do not read scriptures against Grammar, against sense. Against Grammar, by the Rules whereof two negations affirm; so that non omnes haeretici non legunt, is the same as omnes Haeretici legunt, all Heretics read the scriptures. Against sense, for in this your translation, All heretic do not read scriptures, nor are they heretics for any other reason, but because they understand them no● aright, one part of the sentence destroyeth the 〈◊〉. For if all heretics read not scriptures, as you 〈◊〉 S. Augustine say, in the first part, than the cause of their heresy is not only pertinacious misprision 〈◊〉 the sense of scripture, as he affirmeth in the 〈◊〉. No doubt if heretics read not the sacred text, 〈◊〉 not only misinterpretation of the sense, but also ignorance of the text may be the cause of their 〈◊〉. This same Ignorance in Grammar makes you in this 
(r) Repl. pag. 35. in margin. lit. b.  your Reply, in proof that Protestants acknowledge some places obscure in scripture, to cite these words of your fellow-Minister Paraeus; NON n●g●mus scripturam NIHIL habere obscuritatis. Is not 〈◊〉 the plain contrary of what you intent? For what is non negamus, but we affirm, scripturam nihi● habere obscuritatis, the scripture to be no where obscure.  
To prove that we make scriptures subject to 〈◊〉 Pope, you cite the Dictates of Gregory the 7. set down by Baronius, containing certain privileges of the Pope's authority, whereof one is, Quòd nullum Capitulum, nullusque liber Canonicus habeatur sine authoritate ipsius, you 
(s) Reply. pag. 92. in fine.  translate thus, that no chapter, no book of scripture be esteemed Canonical without 〈◊〉 authority. In which translation you show both falsehood and ignorance. Falsehood in that you add to the text 
(t) This you have done, not only in this place, but also in your Orthodox three or four times, as in the Epistle dedicatory pag. 10. & elsewhere.  in the same letter, as part thereof, no ●●●pter of scripture, no book of scripture, those words 〈◊〉 being in the latin text, nor in the sense: for if it ●●re granted that the Pope doth here speak of the chapter of books, it doth not follow that he means 〈◊〉 books of scripture, but rather the books of Canon law, which laws in that age 
(u) Burchardus, Isidorus Gratianus.  diverse did begin to compile, & gather together into volumes: and so he defineth, that no Chapters, that no books of Canon, or Church-law be held authentical without his approbation.  
Ignorance, because common sense might have taught you, that this Decree could not be underderstood of Chapters, or Books. The reason is, because, to put chapter before book, and to say no chapter of book, nor any book shall be held Canonical without the Pope, is idle and senseless. For if no chapter can be Canonical without the Pope, much less a whole book; so that having said, that not so much as a chapter be held Canonical without the Pope, it was senseless to add the same of whole books. This speech is as foolish as this, should one say, Not any person, nor any whole family came to Church; or as this, He read not one line, nor one chapter, nor one book; whereas sense would say, not one book, not one chapter, not one line.  
Thirdly a little skill in latin, joined with judgement would have easily found out the true and coherent sense of this Dictate. For Capitulum signify not only a chapter of a book, but also a Chapter-house, or college of Canons: Liber signify no● only a book, but also free and exempt: Canonical also (as every man knows) signify not only Canonical, but also a Cannon, or Prebend: So that the Pope's privilege, quòd nullum Capitulum, nullusq●● liber Canonicus habeatur absque illius authoritate, is thus in English, that no Chapter-house, or College of Canons, nor any single Canon or Prebend be free, & exempt fro● the authority of the Ordinary, but by the Pope's authority 〈◊〉 sole authority of Metropolitans, or Primates not 〈◊〉 sufficient to make such exemptions. As for ●●okes of scriptures, we teach that they all be divine and canonical in themselves, and for the most part ●● own to be such, by the perpetual tradition of the Church, some very few excepted that have been canonised unto us by general Counsels, and not 〈◊〉 by the sole and single authority of the pope. Behold how wide off the mark you shoot, through your ignorance of latin, and through want of judgement to make sensible construction of latin sentences.   

The fourth Example. §. 4.  
You device many mysteries about the word species, in answer of S. Cyprian his words cited by the jesuit for Transubstantiation: 
(y) Iste pani● non effigie se natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est 〈◊〉. Cyprian. serm. de Coena.  This bread changed not in shape but in nature, by the omnipotency of the Word is made flesh, you say, the Author by the words natura mutatus, changed in nature, understood not a corporal or Physical, but only a mystical change. This you prove, because in the same book this Father saith, that 
(z) Cyprian ibid. Corp●●ralis substantiae retinens speciem: sed virtutis divinae invisibil. essentia probans adesse praesentiam▪  although the immortal food delivered in the Eucharist differ from common meat, yet ●●retaineth in the kind of corporal substance: He saith not species in the plural number, meaning, according to the new Popish sense, the external shapes and accidents of bread (for let the Adversary prove out of antiqui●● that S. Cyprian, or the Primitive Church maintained 〈◊〉 late Roman doctrine concerning shapes of bread and 〈◊〉 without the material substance, and we will freely grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is ancient) 〈◊〉 he saith speciem in the singular number, that is, the corporal form and substance. Thus you: showing yourself to have no species of true learning, whether species signify kind or shape. For here you discover four simplicityes in matter of Grammar.  
The first, is the mystery you make about the plural and singular number of species; as though S Cyprian▪ if he had said in the plural, Alimonia immortalitatis, corporalis substantiae retinens species, should have favoured Transubstantiation; whereas now that he saith in the singular, corporalis substantiae retinens speciem, he doth overthrew it. He saith not (say you) species in the plural number, meaning the shapes and accidents of bread, but speciem in the singular, that is the kind or the corporal substance or form. Now I pray you, what Grammar doth teach, that species in the plural number doth signify shapes and external accidents, and in the singular, kind and substance? had S. Cyprian said plurally that the Eucharist corporalis substantiae retine● species, why might you not have interpreted species, kinds, natures, and forms, aswell as now you interpret speciem, the nature, kind, and form? And though S. Cyprian say speciem corporalis substantiae in the singular, yet why may not we expound shape and semblant of corporal substance, aswell as we might have expounded shapes and semblantes, had he said in the plural corporalis substantiae species? Verily you are by your adversary, & by the force of truth driven into such straits, as you coin new Grammatical mysteries against all Grammar.  
Your second simplicity, is the noting that species in the singular doth signify nature, and kind, as though we were ignorant thereof, or that you could hereby elude the testimonies of the Fathers we bring, to 〈◊〉 they taught the Eucharist to be the shape of 〈◊〉 and wine, containing the body and blood of 〈◊〉 Lord. This I say, is a silly and miserable shift, for though species signify nature & kind, and this signification be much used, specially in Logic, yet no 〈◊〉 can deny but species doth also properly signify 〈◊〉 outward semblant, show, and shape, and that this signification is very vulgar And to know when species doth signify shape, and not kind, this rule is infallible, that still it is taken for shape when it is opposed unto nature and invisible Essence. When S. Paul exhortes, that not only men have their inward conscience pure towards God, but also that they abstain ab omni specie mali, 
1. Thess. 5.22.  who endued with common sense will interpret this otherwise, then from any show or semblant of evil? By this rule we prove that the Fathers when they say, that the species of bread remains, they mean the shapes, because they oppose the species of bread unto the inward substance & true being of bread▪ Thus S Cyrill: 
Cyrillus Hierosol. orat. 4▪ mystagog.  Know and most certainly believe 〈◊〉 this bread which seemeth to us, is not bread, though the taste esteem it to be bread, but the body of Christ; and that the wine seen of us, though to the taste it seem wine, is not wine, but the blood of our Lord: nam sub specie panis datur tibi corpus, sub specie vini datur tibi sanguis, under the species of bread is given thee the body, under the species of wine is given thee the blood of Christ. What 〈◊〉 be more clear than that this Father doth distinguish the species and shape of bread and wine from 〈◊〉 nature, kind, and substance, affirming the first 〈◊〉 remain, and not the second?  
Your third simplicity is, that to prove that species in the singular doth signify kind, not shape, you bring this place of Saint Cyprian: 
(*) Cyprian. serm. de coena.  im●mortalitatis alimonia datur, à communibus cibis differens, corporalis substantiae retinens speciem, sed Diui●● Virtutis invisibili essentia probans adesse praesentiam. Fo● even in this testimony species doth not signify kind but shape, and so by this very text Transubstantiation is proved. This is clear; because whe● the species of a thing is in speech opposed against the virtue of the same thing, than species mu●● needs signify shape and show, not truth an● substance. As when S. Paul saith 
(a) 1. Tim. 3. 5·  Habentes specie● pietatis, virtutem autem eius abnegantes, no man that sober, will translate, Having piety in the nature & kin● yet denying the virtue thereof, but, Retaining the show▪ piety, yet denying the virtue thereof. Now S. Cyprian● this text by you cited, doth oppose the Eucharist, according to the species, unto the Eucharist according to the invisible Essence thereof, affirming the same to 〈◊〉 a common thing specie, but a divine presential ve●●tue ivisibili essentia. Wherefore his words can bear no other sense but this, that the Eucharist is the sub●stance of corporal Bread, according to the outwa●● shape & show of the accidents, but the divine presential virtue of Christ's body & blood, according 〈◊〉 the inward nature, & invisible Essence of the thing▪  
Your fourth simplicity is, that this your Gram●maticall speculation about the singular & plural 〈◊〉 Species being of itself silly, is likewise altogether impertinent unto your purpose. For you by this acception of Species, would clear the text of S. Cyprian alleged by the Answearer to prove, that bre●● in the Eucharist remaineth only in shape, and no● in substance. In which text the Father doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word species but effigies, saying: Panis non effigy, sed 〈◊〉 mutatus etc. Bread changed not in the effigies, 〈◊〉 in the nature, is by the omnipotency of his Word 〈◊〉 his flesh. Now though we should grant your 〈◊〉 conceit, that Species in the singular doth signify the kind of the nature, and not the shape of outward accidents; yet I think you are not so devoid of all 〈◊〉, as you will affirm that effigies in the singular may signify nature and kind; nor will you be so sensele●●● as to translate panis non effigie sed natura mutatus, bread changed not according to the kind, but according to the nature. And if effigies signify shape & not kind, than we see this most ancient Father supposeth as a thing most certain, that the sacred Eucharist is bread in shape and show, not in the nature o● invisible essence: A mystery seemingly absurd to flesh & blood, yet you might more wisely upon the literal sense of God's word believe it with simplicity of Faith against your carnal sense, then seek to maintain this was not the Faith of the ancient Church, with so much Childish simplicity against Grammar.   

A fifth Example of Ignorance, joined with extreme Insolency. §. 5.  
HAVING made manifest your simplicity in Latin, I add another conviction of your Grammatical Ignorance, even about the Construction of an English sentence, whereby most calumniously you 〈◊〉 upon your Adversary false and impious doctrine. I would not have noted your grossness in this point, were not the same joined with serious disputation against the supposed error, & most bitter Insultation against the jesuit, not only reviling him but also his whole Order, yea, through their sides, the most Holy Ancient Fathers▪ Thus you writ pag. 236.  
The latter branch of the jesuits assumption, to wit, The Cross, Nails, & Lance were offered by Christ to his heavenly Father at his passion, is impiously false▪ For nothing was offered by Christ to his heavenly Father, 〈◊〉 his passion, but himself, & part of himself. Hebr. 7.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; he offered up himself. Hebr. 9.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; through the eternal Spirit he offered up himself without spot to God etc. Hebr. 10.10. We are sanctified through the offering of the body of jesus Christ once for all. Hebr. 9.12. By his own blood he entered once into the holy place. And if the Cross, Nails, and Lance were offered by Chrict to his Father, than we were redeemed with corruptible things, which is a jesuitical, or rather Anti-Iesui● doctrine, that is, a doctrine ascribing to dead Creatures, Iron, wood, steel, nails etc. that which is most proper to the precious blood of jesus. This Doctrine (maintained by Loyalists) is most sacrilegious, and more to be abhorre● then judas his lips: But it is fulfilled in these men which Clement Alexandrinus saith of Heathen Idolaters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Are they not prodigious monsters, that adore stocks and stones?  
Thus seriously do you dispute against jesuites, whom you name Loyalists, for holding doctrine they never dreamt of. They 
(a) Crux ara fuit summi Sacrificij. Bellar. de Imag. c. 17.  teach with the 
(b) Crux Christi non Templi fuit ara, sed Mundi. Leo serm. 10. de pass.  Fathers that the Cross was the Altar whereon Christ offered up himself; but that he offered up to his Father the wood of the Cross, or the Steel, & Iron of the Lance, & Nails for our Redemption, certain I am this never passed through their thoughts. And ye● 〈◊〉 his supposed Errors▪ you are so waspish, as 〈◊〉 have 
(*) Not without cause, she having given out disgraceful words against M. Fisher.  suspected, that as Omphale 〈…〉 the ●lub of Hercules, so your Xantippe in your 〈…〉 took your pen into her hand, and thence poured down upon our heads this shameful shower 〈◊〉 ●●proach. I might (I say) have entertained this su●●●tion, were it not for the so frequent aspersion of so many Greek words, according to the 
(c) Si duo aut tria verba graeca sonuerit, sapere sibi videtur.  fashion of heretics, against which I may fitly in this place apply the words of the Satire— Omnia Graecè, Cùm sit turpe magis nostris nescire Latinè▪  
Greeke words flow from their mouth, whereas in men of 〈◊〉 it is more shameful to be ignorant of their own language, & to want wit & judgement to construe the same. Upon which Ignorance this your imputation of 〈◊〉 unto jesuits is grounded, except you will acknowledge that herein you slander them maliciously▪ as I will now clearly demonstrate.  
First those words, The Cross, Nails, and Lance were offered by Christ to his heavenly Father at his passion, how are they set down by you? As the very text of the jesuite in so many words? Show these formal words in his book, & he (I know) will give you leave to rail at him (wherein you take so great pleasure) till you have eased your stomach of all your 〈◊〉. As your own words, wherein you think to 〈◊〉 down not the text, but the sense of the jesuites 〈◊〉? why then are they put in a distinct letter, as 〈◊〉 from yours, and as the jesuites formal 〈◊〉? If the jesuites words were ambiguous, & 〈◊〉 to that impious sense you set upon them 〈◊〉 ●hey are not) yet, as it had been Charity to have co●●rued them to the better sense, so is your falsehood intolerable, to substitute in lieu of his ambiguous speech, another that contains impiety; without 〈◊〉 ambiguity and doubt: Another (I say) of your ow● making, set in a distinct letter, as if it were formally and verbally his.  
Secondly, if the true words of the jesuit 〈◊〉 down it will presently appear that his proposition is not, That the Cross, and Nails were offered to the 〈◊〉 at Christ's passion, but that they were instrument of his passion; not as the same proceeded from 〈◊〉 hearts of the wicked, but as by him entertained in 〈◊〉 own hart, and offered to his Father; & this so cleverly, as it may seem prodigious, that you could igno●rantly, or that you would wittingly mistake his se●●tence. For the jesuit answering a Protestant vulg●● objection the King's majesty urged in the Conference If the Cross & Nails be worshipped, because they touch the body of our Lord, why not also the lypps of judas 〈◊〉 touched our Saviour's lypps when he gave him that tray●●●rous kiss? The jesuit (I say) delivers a threefold m●●nifest disparity between the lips of judas, and the h●●ly Cross, and about the third disparity he thus 〈◊〉.  
The Passion may be considered two ways: First, as p●●●ceeding from the will of wicked men that tormented hi● in which consideration it is not grateful unto God, 〈◊〉 detestable●action in the doers thereof. Secondly as it was conceived in the body of Christ, admitted into his heart, 〈◊〉 OFFERED to his Father; and by this consideration is sacred and venerable. The lips of judas betraying 〈◊〉 were instruments of his Passion, as it proceeded from 〈◊〉 hart, and consequently as it was a detestable action; but 〈◊〉 Cross, the Nails, the Lance that stayed in, and was 〈…〉 to the body of Christ, were instruments of his passion 〈◊〉 in his sacred person, and as offered to his heavenly Father, and consequently, as of a thing most highly 〈◊〉.  
What can be more clear, then that in this discourse, not the wood of the Cross, but the pain and passion thereof is said to have been admitted into Christ's hart, and offered to his Father? In proof hereof I omit, that your sense is both false and senseless. False, because the wood of the Cross did not enter into the hart of Christ, nor the iron of the nails, but only the pain and passion caused by the same▪ and the steel of the Lance though it went into his hart, yet this was after his death, when he could not offer it to his Father. Senseless, because though the Cross and nails had been offered unto God the Father, yet could they not be said to have been instruments of his Passion, as they were offered. For in that case Christ's offering of them unto his Father, should have been an action consequent upon the Crosses instrumental operation in pay●●●g and tormenting his body, whence the Cross should not have been the instrument to torment his body, as offered to his Father, but contrariwise the Cross as the instrument tormenting his body, should have been offered to his Father.  
Nor will I urge the drift of the whole discourse, which doth most clearly declare the last clause thereof. For the jesuit by the whole discourse doth intent to show, how the suffering of our Lord, as it 〈◊〉 an action proceeding from the hart of the wicked, is distinct from the same, as a passion received in his body, and entertained in his heart, and offered to his Father; for this opposition, and the saying, It 〈◊〉 received, It was offered, doth most evidently 〈◊〉 that offered to the Father, is spoken of the Passion, 〈◊〉 of the Cross and Nails. These arguments I pretermit and remit unto our Adversary, and only will stan● precisely upon the Construction of this last claus● The Cross, Nails, and lance were instruments of Chri●● Passion, as lodged in his sacred Person, and offered to 〈◊〉 heavenly Father, and therefore as of a thing most high Venerable. The words, as lodged, and as offered to 〈◊〉 heavenly Father, cannot possibly be referred, & co●●strued with the Cross & Nails, but only with 〈◊〉 Passion. This I prove, because to be lodged in Chri●● sacred Person, & offered to the heavenly Father, is referre● in this speech, to that thing which herein is concluded to be a thing most higly venerable, as the 〈◊〉 doth declare, as lodged in his sacred Person, and offe● to his Father, and therefore as a thing most highly venturable. Hence lodged, and offered, being Participles, 〈◊〉 Adiectives, must in this speech be of the same Num●ber, and Case, as is the thing thence concluded 〈◊〉 be most highly Venerable. Now the thing most hig● Venerable, is in this speech put in the Genetive 〈◊〉 singular, of a thing most highly Venerable, therefore▪ lodged in his person, and offered to his Father, must 〈◊〉 likewise the Genitive Case singular. How then 〈◊〉 they be construed in speech with Cross, Nails an● Lance, that are the Nominative Plural? Had the I●●suit said, the Cross, the Nails, & lance were instruments of Christ's Passion, as lodged in his person, and offered 〈◊〉 his father, & consequently as most Venerable, this speech taken precisely by itself, had been ambiguous, an● the former Epiphets lodged, offered, most Venerab●● 〈◊〉 have been referred unto the Cross & Nails, 〈◊〉 as unto the Passion. But now saying as he doth Instruments of Christ's Passion, as lodged in his Person, offered to his Father, and therefore as of a thing most Venerable, it is your gross ignorance, or unadvised rash●●● (if not wilful perverseness) to refer lodged in his Person, and offered to his Father, unto the Cross & Nails.  
The reproaches you load on Loyalists (so you please to nickname jesuits) do move them to take Compassion of you, these being tokens of great passion that distempers your judgement, which the learning of your Adversary hath put you into. For were you not blind with passion, would you revile jesuits as you do, for Adorers of stocks and stones, for prodigious Monsters, most sacrilegious, more to be detested then judas his Lips, in respect of their worshipping our Saviour's Cross? Do you not mark that reviling them, in this regard, you revile together with them, all Christians that have worshipped that most sacred Wood, to wit, all the Fathers of the six Primitive Ages? For hear what a learned Father and Famous Antagonist of the Acephali then living, doth write and witness of the Church in those ages: 
(g) Rusticus Diaconus contra Acephalos.  Clavos quibus crucifixus est, & Lignum Venerabilis Crucis, omnis per mundum Ecclesia, sine ulla contradictione, adorat: The universal Church of Christ spread over the world, doth adore the Nails wherewith he was crucified, and the Wood of the Venerable Cross, without any contradiction: because as then Maho●●t was not borne, by whom 
(h) See Zonoras' and Cedrenus in vita Leonis Isaurici, and Paulus Diaconus in Miscella. lib. 13.  unfortunate Christians were first taught to malign the worship of their Saviour's Cross, and Image.  
Another Father 
(i) Hormisda. epist. 27. ad Euphem. Augustam.  more ancient, and of greater authority saith: Helena salutis humanae LIGNV● & Crucem quam totus veneratur mundus invenit. Helena found out the Wood of human Salvation, which the whole Christian world doth Worship. What will you say of the Fathers, who taught the Devotees of their time, 
(k) Hieron. epist. 17. in Epitaph. Paulae Prostrata ante crucem, quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret, adorabat.  to prostrate themselues before the Cross & adore, as if they saw their Lord hanging thereon? Who even in the time of persecution before Constantine, did plant the Image of Christ crucified in the Entry of Churches, informing Christians that did enter, how to behave themselves towards it, by this verse. 
(l) Lactin. in Carm. de pas. who lived in the time of persecution, & died in the beginning of the Empire of Constantine.   
Flecte Genu, Lignumque Crucis Venerabile adora.  
Bow knee, adore the Crosses sacred Wood  
The day will come, when 
(m) Matth. 24.3.  the sign of the Son of Man shall shine in the sky, and then the lips of Verity itself shall declare, who be more to be detested then judas his lips, Novell-gospellers, or Ancient Fathers, the Enemies, or Honourers of his Cross, when (except the Fathers be Prodigious monsters) you must be bound up together 
(n) Alligate ea in fasciculos ad comburendum. Matt. 13.30.  with judas, to kiss each others lips for ever, and eternally.    

Gross and incredible Ignorance in Logic. SECT. II.  
AFTER Grammar and Latin, Children are commonly taught Logic, or the Art of Reasoning, without which no man can be grounded either in Philosophy, or Theology. Your ignorance in this kind, spreads itself over every 〈◊〉 of your book, and it is such, as an Adversary 〈◊〉 your disgrace, could not have wished you should commit grosser faults. This I shall make clear by three Examples, whereof each involueth many arguments, not only of your Ignorance, but also of your Boldness in talking about things, of which you are totally ignorant.  

The first Example. §. 1.  
THE 
(a) Reply. pag. 116.  jesuit to prove against protestants, argumento ad hominem, that the Roman is the true Church, argueth in this sort: That Church from which Protestants received the Scripture, is the one, holy, Catholic Apostolic Church. The Church from which Protestants received, is no other than the Roman: Ergo, The Roman is the one, holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church.  
To this argument you reply pag. 116. This syllogism is peccant in form, and both the propositions are affirmative in the second figure: which I note the rather, because the Adversary at the end of this Argument, cryeth victoria, saying; An argument convincing and unanswerable: I must therefore reduce the same to a lawful form and then answer. Thus you. Now vouchsafe to take a view of your manifold ignorance.  
I pretermit your falsehood in charging the jesuit of saying, that this Argument is convictive, & unanswerable. For the jesuite doth not so affirm of this argument, but of another, to wit of this: If it be possible, that the Church can deliver, by full and unanimous consent, a false sense; than it is possible that in like manner she may deliver a false text. But protestants cannot say that the Church, by full and unanimous consent of Tradition, can deliver a false text: Ergo, they may not say, it is possible that 〈◊〉 Church should deliver by full & unanimous consent a false sense. This argument the jesuit termeth 〈◊〉 answerable, not the other which you challenge ● peccant in form. But this your falsehood I pretermit and only prosecute your faults in Logic The●● are four, and so gross as they show clearly that yo● never learned, or else have utterly forgot the Sur●●mula's or Rudiments of this Art, which childre● customarily are taught.  
The first fault is, not to distinguish betwixt 〈◊〉 Second & Third Figure, which is as childish in L●●gike, as in Grammar not to know the third Decle●●sion from the second. You say, the jesuits argume●● is in the second figure, and therefore peccant in form●● both propositions being affirmative: Whereas i● truth the same is in the third figure, in which it lawful to argue both propositions being affirmati●● The third figure is, wherein the Medium, or mean● of proof is subjected in both propositions, that is▪ the thing whereof another term is predicated, th●● is, is affirmed or denied. In the jesuites Argument 〈◊〉 medium to prove the Roman to be the holy, Catho●like Church, is the Church from which Protesta●● received Scriptures: This Church from which Pr●●testants receive the Scripture is predicated in ne●●ther of his propositions, but in both is subjected, th●● is, is the term whereof another thing is affirmed 〈◊〉 said In the mayor proposition of the Church 〈◊〉 gave protestants the scripture, One, Holy, Catholics Apostolic is affirmed: The Church from whic● Protestants received the scripture, is the one, holy Apostolic Church. In the minor likewise of the 〈◊〉 Church from which Protestants receive Scripture, the Roman is predicated. The Church from which Protestant's receive the Scripture is the Roman. Hence in lawful form in the third figure, follows this conclusion, Ergo, the Roman is the one, holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church.  
Your second fault is grosser than the first. For you know not the quality of Propositions, nor can discern a negative from an affirmative, which is as great simplicity in Logic, yea greater than in Grammar not to know the termination of the second Declension from the first. You say, in the jesuits Argument both propositions are pure affirmative, whereas his Minor is in part negative, to wit, Protestants received the Scripture from no other but the Roman. Who feels not this proposition to be partly negative, wherein is denied, that any Church besides the Roman, is that Church from which Protestants can pretend the Scriptures, to wit, authentically, or by assured perpetual Tradition, hand to hand from the Apostles? For Exceptive and Exclusive Enuntiations, be compound Enuntiations, partly Affirmative, partly Negative, and as Logicians teach, the 
(b) Enuntiationes exponibiles.  Exposition of them is to be made into two single propositions, whereof the one is negative, the other affirmative. So the jesuits' proposition Protestants received Scripture by no other Church but the Roman, being exceptive, is to be expounded by a Negative, No Church not Roman, is the Church from which Protestants received Scripture; and also by an affirmative, The Church from which Protestants received Scripture, is the Roman. Hence the jesuit, as he did conclude in a form of the third figure called Disamis, his minor being partly affirmative, so might he have concluded in a form of the second termed Camestres, the same minor being also negative in this manner: The Holy Catholic Church is that from which Protestants received the Scripture: No Church but the Roman, is that Church from which Protestant's received the Scripture: Ergo, No Church but the Roman is the holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.  
Your third fault is, not to know the form of Expository Syllogisms from the common An Expository syllogism is that, wherein the means of proof is a singular and individual thing, in which kind it is good form to argue affirmatively in any figure even in the second. For example this syllogism: The Minister grossly ignorant in Logic, replied against M. Fisher. The Dean of Carlisle is he who replied against M. Fisher. Ergo, the Dean of Carliele is the Minister grossly ignorant of Logic This syllogism is in the second figure, and both propositions are affirmative; yet if you deny the form of arguing to be good, you will but confirm the truth of the conclusion. Hence the jesuit might in good form have argued affirmatively in the second figure, in this manner. The One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolical Church, is that Church from which Protestants pretend to have the Scriptures authentically: The Roman is that Church from which Protestants pretend to have the Scriptures authentically: Ergo, the Roman is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolical Church.  
Your fourth fault is, that you play the Reformer of Arguments, as Luther did of Churches, that is, you reject lawful and good forms, and in lieu of them bring in vicious and damnable. The jesuits argument as by you 
(c) Reply pag. 117.  reform is this: The Church from which Protestants received the scriptures, is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolical Church: Protestants received the scripture from the Roman: Ergo, the Roman is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolical Church. In this reformed argument both propositions are particular, and consequently the form of arguing vicious in any figure, as every Logician knows. The jesuit to prevent this fault made his minor an universal Proposition: For this proposition, Protestants received the Scriptures from no other Church but the Roman, is equivalent, or equipollent unto this, Every Church delivering scriptures unto Protestants is Roman. Wherefore to reduce the jesuits argument in true form unto the first Figure, you should have made the mayor 
(d) For as Logic teaches, In prima Figura maior semper est universalis.  Universal in this sort: Every Church that delivered unto Protestants the scriptures is the Catholic: The Roman delivered the Scriptures unto Protestants: Ergo, the Roman Church is the Catholic Church. If you say the Means of proof in the jesuits argument is Individual, and so the Syllogism Expository, & not according to the ordinary form; why then do you reprehend his argument, as being affirmative in the second figure, seeing Expository Syllogisms may be affirmative in any figure? Are you a Doctor, a Dean, a Master in Israel, and know not these things? Being so ignorant of Logic, were you so destitute likewise of discretion, as you could not keep yourself from carping at the jesuit, as peccant in Logic? Can you not at least have been silent about figures and forms of arguing, concerning which, you speak no more assuredly, than a blind man of colours?  
Some may say, that though you be ignorant of Logic, you do not greatly care, because this your Ignorance howsoever evident unto the learned, cannot be made palpable unto the Ladies who esteem you, and are lead away by you. I answer: Although your Ignorance in Logic cannot by this discourse be made palpable unto Ladies; yet the falsehood of your Religion, even about your ground and rule of faith, may be made palpable unto them. You make the rule of Faith to be not express scripture, affirming a thing in so many words (for then the Ladies that can read, might strait discover the falsehood of your Religion, whereof not one article against us is expressly delivered in scripture:) You therefore (I say) make the rule of Faith to be not only Scripture, but also 
(e) The doctrine of faith is either expressly or derivatively contained in Scripture. Fran. white pag. 300. What is deduced by necessary consequence according to the rules of Logic. Wotton. Trial. pag. 88  what doctrine soever is by Principles of reason, and Rules of Logic deduced from the Scripture. Now when a thing is deduced from scripture, by good consequence, by true art, and not by Sophistry, Ladies, except they have diligently studied Logic, cannot possibly know. This is evident. For nothing is deduced by good consequence from scripture, which is not deduced by discourse in lawful figure & form, & not by Sophistry, or a fallacious show: But the Ladies cannot possibly know, when an argument is in true mood and figure, nor consequently discern Syllogisms from Sophisms, which their insufficiency they must needs feel in themselves, if they be in their senses: Therefore they cannot possibly be assured, by the ground and rule of Faith you prescribe them, nor consequently can they groundedly believe Christian Religion, nor be saved. They must trust ignorant Ministers, who cry Sophistry, Sophistry against arguments in lawful form, as now you have done, not so much out of malice, but as I am persuaded, out of mere Ignorance of such Rudiments of discourse, as men are taught in their childhood.   

The second Example. §. 2.  
You not only accuse the jesuits Arguments of Sophistry when they are lawful, but also pretend to bring invincible Demonstrations when your Arguments be childish, & known Sophisms. Behold hereof notorious Examples. Your adversary to prove the tradition of the Church to be more Prime and Original than the scripture, brings 4. Arguments. You on the contrary side to requite him in the same number, have set down other 4. to prove, that a Christian is built originally and fundamentally on the word of God, not as delivered by tradition, but as written. In these Arguments you glory, 
(f) Reply pag. 47. and 48.  saying, That the jesuits are but funiculus vanitatis, a bundle of vanity, and a potsherd covered over with the dross of silver. Now these your arguments, in comparison of which you so debase the jesuits, are all and every one of them idle & trivial fallacyes, as I will particularly and clearly demonstrate.  
The first 
(g) Reply pag. 48▪  is, That which is most excellent in every kind, is the model of the rest; but I trow you will grant the Scripture to be the most excellent part of God's word. (2. Pet. 19 August. l. 17. cont. Faust. c. 5.) Ergo the scripture is the model, and pattern of the rest.  
This Argument is constans ex quatuor terminis, that is, hath four different terms, whereas all true form of arguing aught to have only three. Scripture is one term, Model and pattern of the rest, a second, Most excellent in every kind, a third, the most excellent part, a fourth: for it is not all one to say the excellent thing in every kind, & the most excellent part of many parts. Amongst whole and total things, the most excellent in every kind may in some sort be said to be the pattern of the rest, but amongst parts, the most excellent is not the ground of the rest.  
In substantuall Compounds, the substantial form is more excellent than the substantial matter, yet the substantial form is not the ground of the matter; yea rather the matter is the ground of the form, being the fundamental & radical cause out of which material forms are produced. Who sees not that Walls, Chambers, and Galleryes are more excellents parts of the house, and more beautiful than the fundations? Yet the fundations are more prime, original, and whereon the Walls, and Chambers depend, and are kept in being. In this manner the word of God as written, is more excellent, in respect of deep and profound learning, than Tradition, yet the word as delivered by Tradition is more prime, original, fundamental; because it is the sole ground and foundation, by which we know which is the word of God the Apostles delivered in writing. Hence you are such a Bungler in Logic, as you undertake to prove one thing, and conclude another. You undertake 
(h) Reply 47. lin. 28.  to prove, that the foundation of Christian Religion is the word of God, not as delivered by tradition, but as written: you conclude, that the written word is the pattern, and model of all other kinds of Divine Revelations. Now to be the ground of the rest, is different from to be the pattern of the rest; yea the ground of things is seldom or never the pattern of them. The grape by common consent is held the most excellent of all kind of fruit, and so by your rule, the model and pattern of the rest; yet the grape is not the ground, the root, and seed of all other fruit; nor do all other fruit spring and proceed from it.  
Your second Argument: 
(i) Ibid. pag. 48.  A Christian is built fundamentally on the Rock, but the scripture is the rock, (Cardinalis Cameracensis quaest. vespert. recom. Sacrae scripturae.) Ergo, A Christian is built fundamentally on Scripture.  
I wish that this my Discovery may make you wise unto your eternal Salvation, as is doth lay open your shameful Ignorance unto your temporal disgrace: for here you are so grossly, and together unluckily ignorant, as you are fallen into the very same fault in Logic, whereof without cause you charged your Adversary, as peccant, to wit, of making Syllogisms, whereof both propositions were affirmative in the second figure. An argument is affirmative in the second figure, when the Means of proof is affirmed in both propositions. Your Means to prove that a Christian is fundamentally built on Scripture, is this term, Built on the rock, and this is the very thing affirmed in both your propositions. In your mayor, Built on the rock, is affirmed of the Christian: The Christian, or he that is fundamentally built, is built on the rock. In the minor the same is affirmed of him that is built on Scripture. The Scripture is the rock, that is, he that is built on the Scripture, is built on the rock. Hence your conclusion, Ergo, The Christian, or he that is fundamentally built, is built on the Scripture, is affirmative, in the second figure. How fond, & inconsequent this form of arguing is, you may feel by this of the same tenor, with change of matter.  

He that is borne in Sicily, is borne in an Island.  
He that is borne in England, is borne in an Island. Ergo,  
He that is borne in England, is borne in Sicily.   
This is a foolish Sophism, because concluding affirmatively in the second figure, & so is yours. For as it is not consequent, if a man be borne in an Island, that he is borne in Sicily, because there be other Lands besides Sicily; so this is no good consequence, A Christian is built on the Rock, Ergo, on the Scripture, because Scripture is not the only Rock, the word of God, as delivered by Tradition, being a rock and ground of Faith no less sure & infallible then Scripture, or God's Word as written. Abraham, Isaac, jacob, joseph, and innumerable other holy persons were fundamentally built in faith, & yet not built on Scripture, the word of God not being then extant in writing S. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. doth write, that in his days many Nations were Christian, and did diligently observe the true Christian Religion printed in their hearts, and yet had not any Scripture, nor the word of God as written. False then is this negative which your argument put into true form, doth imply; No man is built fundamentally on the Rock, that is not built on the word of God, as written.  
Your third argument: 
(k) Reply pag. 48.  The seed of faith is the root and foundation of every Christian: But the Scripture is the seed of faith, (joan. 20.41.) for it is the word of God. (Luc. 8.11. joan. 1.18. 1. Cor. 4.15.)  
This argument is also an idle fallacy, and sophististicall syllogism, for both the propositions thereof are particular; which form (as hath been said) is vicious, and not lawful in any figure. This you may perceive by this argument form punctually according to the shape of yours, with change of matter.  

The seed of Faith is the root and foundation of every Christian.  
But the blood of Martyrs is the seed of Faith, for it is the seed of the Christian Church. Ergo,  
The blood of Martyrs is the root and foundation of every Christian.   
This argument is like yours, and both are vain, because the Argument being in the first figure, the Mayor proposition is particular, which ought to be universal in this sort.  

Every seed of faith, is the root of every Christian.  
The Scripture, or word of God as written, is the seed of Faith. Ergo.  
The Scripture, or word of God as written, is the root of every Christian.   
This argument is in lawful form, but the mayor thereof is false, for every seed of Faith is not the root of a Christian, but only that seed which first breedeth faith in him, and whereon all other seeds depend. Now the seed which first breedeth Faith in Christians, is not the word of God as written, but the word of God as delivered by tradition. For upon the credit of Tradition, we know the written word, and without this (ordinarily speaking, and without new immediate Revelation) we cannot know the Scripture, or written word to be from the Apostles, and by them of God. Ergo, the word of God not as written, but as delivered by tradition, is that seed of faith which is the root of every Christian.  
The fourth Argument▪ 
(l) Reply▪ pag. 48.  The Scripture given by divine inspiration, is simply, and without exception to be received, and all tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be refused. Hence it follows, that Scripture is a rule of Tradition, and not Tradition of Scripture. This argument proceedeth upon the supposal of an impossibility, & so is idle, sophistical, inept. Logicians are taught by their Master Aristotle, if one impossibility be admitted, a thousand other impossibilityes, and absurdityes will be thence concuded. You suppose in this argument, that the word of God as delivered by full tradition, may be repugnant unto the word of God as written. Hence you infer, that Tradition is not simply to be received, but only so far forth, as it agrees with the Scripture. Your supposition is blasphemous: for the word of God unwritten cannot be repugnant unto truth, being the words of the Prime VERITY that cannot deceive, nor be deceived. This impossibility supposed, your consequence is not good: Ergo, Tradition repugnant to Scripture, is to be rejected, and Scripture to be held only, & simply as the rule of Faith. For if God's unwritten word could be repugnant unto the written, it would not follow, that the unwritten word were to be rejected, and the written simply to be received; but that neither the written nor unwritten were to be credited. This is clear, because if God may lie, and deceive us by his word of lively voice, delivered by Tradition, why not also in his writings, delivered by Tradition? What authority doth writing add to God's word, that God cannot lie in writing, if he may lie in speaking?  
I hope I have showed apparently these your Arguments, wherein you so much glory, to be not only false in respect of matter, but also fallacious in respect of form. The same I could show of almost all the rest of your Arguments of this your Reply. Is not then the case of your ignorant Proselytes most deplorable and desperate, whom you persuade to trust these your halting consequences, rather than the perpetual Traditions of the Church? You will have them to make themselves judges, not only of what is contained expressly in Scripture, but also of what is thence derived by Arguments, according to the rules of Logic, wherein if they chance to mistake, they err, and are damned.   

The third Example. §. 3.  
A Third Example of Logical Ignorance, is your heaping together of many fond Inferences, in a matter where you pretend to be very confident that you can bring most invincible proofs. A Controversy there is between you and us, Whether it be a Divine inviolable Ordinance, that all Lay men read Scriptures, so that the Church be bound, by Divine Precept, to translate Scriptures into all vulgar tongues, & not to take Translations from such persons as abuse them, or use them to their perdition. In which question, We (say you) 
(n) Reply pag. 278.  affirm with great confidence, that the reading of holy Scripture by lay people, which must needs imply translation of them, is a Divine Ordinance. And because the jesuit said, that he could never hear, nor read in Protestant substantial proof out of Scripture, of this pretended divine Ordinance, the commonly urged text, Search the scriptures, being insufficient; You say, that you not only urge the text john 3.39. which the jesuit thinketh he can elude by subtle distinctions, as the Arrians eluded the text of S. john 10.30. (that is solidely answered, as 
(o) Caluin in caput 10. joan. circa vers. ●0. saith; The ancient Fathers abused this text, I & my Father are one, to prove Christ not consubstantial with his father. For Christ doth not speak of unity of substance, but of unity of consent betwixt him and his Father.  Caluin averreth) but other texts of Scripture, which you lay together on a heap in this 
(p) Reply pag. 378.  sort.  
The Eunuch is commended for reading holy Scripture Act. 8.28. The Beroeans are called Noble by the holy Ghost, for searching the holy Scripture. Act. 17.11. He is called blessed that readeth and heareth. Apocalip. 1.3. The Galatians read the Scripture. Gal. 4.22. The Ephesians. c. 3.4. The Colossians. c. 4.16. the Thessalonians. 1. Thes. 5.27. The Fathers are so plentiful in this Argument, as I have 
(q) Defence of my Brother. pag. 42.  elsewhere showed, that it would astonish any man who hath read them, to behold such impudence in Papists, as to deny the practice to have been Primitive and Catholic; But necessity hath no law▪ For if the Scriptures may be suffered to speak, Papistry must fall like Dagon before the Ark●.  
Thus you; giving us great cause to commiserate your blindness, that disputing so ignorantly you should conclude so arrogantly. You have in the place by you quoted, 
(r) Orthodox pag. 42.  according to the custom of Heresy, brought many testimonies of Fathers to prove what no man denies, to wit, these two things. First, that it is Pious and Godly to read Scriptures with devotion, with humility, with submission of judgement unto the teaching of the Church, and common Exposition of Catholic Doctors. Secondly, that the practice of reading by Lay people was common & frequent in the Primitive Church, for the time that the learned Languages were vulgarly known, in which tongues the Church neither now doth, nor ever did prohibit the reading of Scriptures unto any person. These two things we approve; so that you are unadvised (might I not say impudent?) in your affirming that, The Papists impudently deny this to have been a Primitive practice. No, we deny not the reading of Scripture with due humility, to be pious, or to have been a primitive practice, but only two proud Noveltyes brought in by your Religion. First, that it 
(s) The very words of your brother john in His Way pag. 126.  is lawful, yea necessary for every particular man, by the Scripture to EXAMINE, and JUDGE of the things the Church teacheth him. And when A PRIVATE MAN by Scripture rejects and condemns the teaching of the GREATEST, and BEST CHURCH that is, his JUDGEMENT is not to be taken as PRIVATE, but as SPIRITVALL, and the PUBLIC Censure of THE SPIRIT. Secondly, that all, even Laymen, by divine Pretext and Ordinance, are bound to read the Scriptures, & to have them in their vulgar languages.  
This your doctrine; This your practice we dislike, as dangerous, as impious, as the fountain of Discord, of Heresy, and of manifold most damnable errors. A doctrine, which were it every where established, not Dagon before the Ark, but Christianity would fall before, and yield unto the Devil: as some of your side, taught by lamentable experience, acknowledge and complain: This opinion, say they, 
(t) Hooker Ecclesiast. Policy pag. 119.  being once inserted into the minds of the vulgar, what it may grow unto, God only knoweth. Thus much we see, it hath already made THOUSANDS so HEADSTRONGE even in GROSSE and PALPABLE ERRORS, as that a man whose capacity will scarce serve him to utter five words in sensible manner, BLUSHETH not for MATTER of SCRIPTURE to think his own bare Yea, as good as the Nay of all the wise, grave, and learned men that are in the world: which insolency must be repressed, or it will the VERY BANE of Christian Religion. Behold open Confession extorted upon the rack of Truth, by which we may perceive, how fully and handsomely your Doctrine (that it is necessary, and Divine Ordinance, that every particular man read Scripture, and by it examine and judge the Churches teaching) hath made Dagon to fall before the Ark.  
But leaving the vanity of your bitter vaunting, let us examine what demonstrations out of Scripture you bring for your pretended Divine Ordinance, which with so much confidence you aver. If your arguing be idle and ridiculous in this point, wherein you profess to be so confident, what may be expected of you in other articles? Especially being challenged to show your uttermost force by your adversary, affirming 
(u) See the Reply pag. 278.  that he could never find any solid proof out of Scripture, of this Protestant pretended Divine ordinance.  
Your arguments be seven, drawn from 7. texts of Scripture, in which your Antecedent commonly is either false or uncertain, and your inference ridiculous.  
The first: The 
(y) Act. 8.28.  Eunuch is commended for reading holy Scripture; Ergo it is a divine Ordinance that ignorant Laymen read Scripture in their vulgar tongue: Your Antecedent is more than the Scripture doth express. I read not any direct praise of him in this respect: The Text only 
(x) Act. 8.28.  saith, he was sitting in his Chariot, & reading the Prophet Esay. But suppose he be commended for his reading (as it was indeed commendable) is it consequent, that therefore every Christian, by Divine order and precept, do the like? Is every man bound by divine precept, to do every thing for which any person is praised in Scripture? David is commended in Scripture for rising at midnight to praise God; is this Argument good, Ergo, Every Christian is bound by divine precept to rise at midnight? Verily this consequence is as good, yea better both in respect of form and matter, then is this of yours: The Enunch is commended for reading holy Scripture; Ergo, every man is bound to read Scripture, by divine ordinance.  
The second is: The 
(z) Act. 17.11.  Beroeans are called Noble by the holy Ghost for searching the Scriptures. Ergo, we may with great confidence avouch, that it is a divine ordinance, that all ignorant Laymen read Scripture in the vulgar. A strong argument. The Scripture doth not say the Beroeans read the Scripture in their vulgar tongue, nor doth it term them Noble for their reading of Scripture, but for their receiving the word of Paul with alacrity and joy. Yea the term of The more noble, is not given them in praise of their Religion, but to declare the quality of their Gentry: and so Fulke his Bible hath the Noblest for birth. But suppose the Beroeans read in their vulgar, and be therefore called Noble, is not this inference ridiculous: Ergo, it is a divine Precept that every man read Scripture? Doth not this arguing deserve rather to be laughed at, then answered?  
The third: 
(a) Apoc. 1.3.  Blessed is he that readeth and heareth: Ergo it is a divine ordinance, that all men read the Scripture, & that the Church give them the Scripture translated into all vulgar tongues. Here you not only argue impertinently, but also detruncate & curtail the text of God's Word, leaving out words without which the text hath a false and foolish sense. For if all be blessed that read and hear, without mention or care of what, than they be blessed who read or hear Tully & Virgil▪ or the books of Knighthood. Why do you not let the Scripture express the thing, which being read or heard maketh men blessed? The Scripture fully and truly cited saith, Blessed is he that heareth and readeth the words of this Prophecy, to wit of the Apocalyps; Which place either proveth nothing for your purpose, or else proveth a necessity, that every man read the Apocalyps, under penalty of otherwise not to be blessed. This perchance for very shame you dare not aver. If you do; what shall we, or may we think of Luther, who did neither read, nor hear, nor believe the Apocalyps as a Prophecy, or as the word of 
(b) Nec Apostolicum nec Propheticum esse puto: hunc libellum similem reputo Quarto Esdr●●▪ nec ullo modo deprendere possum quod a Spiritus Sancto confectus sit. Lutherus praefat. in Apocalip.  God? And what an idle inference is this, He is blessed who readeth the Apocalyps, Ergo, it is a divine ordinance that every man read Scriptures? S. Paul saith, 
(c) 1. Cor. 7. Bonum est homini mulierem non tangere. vers. 1. Bonum est illis si sic permaneant. vers. 7. Beatior erit si sic permanserit. vers. 40.  he is blessed that doth not marry: Is it consequent, Ergo, every man is bound not to marry? or, Ergo, men cannot be blessed but only such as do not marry? Surely your wife will see this inference to be foolish: & yet it is as good as yours, Blessed is he that readeth, or heareth the Apocalyps: Ergo, it is a divine ordinance that none be blessed but such as read Scripture.  
The fourth argument; The Galathians read the Scripture; Ergo, it is a divine ordinance that ignorant laymen read them, and that they be translated into every vulgar Dialect. That the Galathians read the Scriptures you prove by the cipher of Galat. 4.24. where the Apostle saith, you that will be under the Law, have you not read the Law? For it is written, Abraham had two Sons. This proof is very poor. For the Apostle doth not affirm they read, but doubtingly demands whether they had not read one particle of Scripture? Also, the question was moved without doubt only to the learned Galathians But suppose they read the Scripture; is it lawful thence to conclude▪ Ergo they read it in their vulgar? If they read it in their vulgar, is it thence consequent, Ergo, every man is bound by divine ordinance to read, and this so strictly as the Church may not forbid translations unto such as abuse them?  
The fifth place; The Ephesians read the Scripture; Ergo, it is a divine precept that ignorant Laymen read the Scripture in their vulgar tongue. The antecedent you show by the cipher Ephes. 3.4. where the Apostle saith, Reading, you may underctand my wisdom in the Mystery of Christ▪ A silly proof. Saint Paul doth not say, that the Ephesians read, but only, that by reading his Epistle, they might understand his wisdom, about the mysteries of grace and Christian Religion. But suppose they read S Paul's Epistle sent unto them; doth it follow, Ergo, it is a divine ordinance that Laymen promiscuously read Scripture? and that the Church must translate Scripture to that end? This inference as even as good as this: By reading the Epistles of Saint Peter, one may understand the great knowledge he had of Christ; Ergo, Every man is bound to read S. Peter's Epistles.  
The sixth; The Colossians read the Scripture; Ergo, it is a divine ordinance that all ignorant Laymen read the Scripture. The antecedent is by you proved by the cipher Coloss. 4.16. which saith, When this Epistle hath been read amongst you, cause it also to be read in the Church of Loadicea. This place doth not prove your intent, that they read so much as that Epistle privately by themselues, but only that the same was publicly read in the Church by the Bishop, or the Priest, or some Church officer in the same language wherein it was written originally. But suppose the Colossians read this Epistle privately by themselues, what a wooden inference is this, Ergo, every Christian is bound by divine ordinance to read Scripture? Or, Ergo, the Church is obliged by divine precept to provide, that the Scripture be translated into vulgar tongues?  
The seaventh Argument; The Thessalonians read the Scripture; Ergo, the reading thereof by ignorant Laymen is a divine ordinance. The antecedent you prove by the cipher 1. Thess. 5.25. which saith, I adjure you, that this Epistle be read unto all holy brethren. Neither doth this text prove private reading of Scripture by Laymen, but only public reading thereof in the Church. But suppose they privately read this Epistle sent them by the Apostle, is it consequent, Ergo, all Laymen are bound to read Scripture, and the Church to translate the same into every tongue? Truly this argument is even as good as this, God created heaven and earth of nothing: Ergo Ministers may make arguments of nothing, or make arguments good that have nothing in them. Or, as this: In the beginning was the word, & the word was with God, Ergo every godly person is bound to read the Scripture word by word from the beginning of Genesis, to the end of the Apocalyps: Or, Ergo, Godly persons do nothing else but read Scripture.    

Gross Ignorance of Theology. SECTION III.  
BESIDES the manifold Errors which you maintain in common with other Ministers, you have diverse proper & peculiar to yourself, and exceeding gross, whereby you declare how ignorant how are of Theology. I will only discover some few of them, but those fundamental, by which you so shake the fabric of your Reply, as no piece thereof remaineth ●ound.  

The first, That unto Ministers Religious Adoration is due. §. 1.  
THIS you affirm pag. 224. Where you undertake to range in order the kinds of union with God, unto which Religious adoration is due. RELIGIOUS ADORATION (say you) primary or secondary is not founded upon every kind of union, as appeareth in mental images, but upon certain kinds of union; to wit; first Personal, as when the Humanity of Christ is coupled with the Deity. Secondly Substantial, as when the parts are coupled with the whole. Thirdly Causal, Relative or Accidental, to wit, when by divine Ordination things created are made instruments, messengers, figures, & receptacles of divine grace, as the holy Sacraments, and the Word and Gospel, and the MINISTERS of the Church etc.  
Behold, amongst the objects that have such union with God, as is a sufficient ground to yield them Religious Adoration, you number Ministers, with an Et caetera in the end, perchance leaving room for your wives to enter, to be likewise your Consorts in Religious Adoration, as good reason they should. How gross this Error is, specially in you, hence may appear, in that hereby you overthrew a great part of your Reply. First you clearly contradict that Principle which so many times you set down, and very earnestly urge, to wit, that Religious Worship, is due to God only. How can this be true, if Religious Worship is due unto Ministers? Be not Ministers Creatures? Be they not other things, and persons, besides God?  
Nor can you say, that when you affirm Religious Worship to be due to God only, you mean primary Religious Adoration, and that consequently you do not contradict yourself in saying, that secondary Religious Adoration is due unto Ministers. This evasion (I say) will not serve your turn, because you declare in express terms, that all Religious adoration, primary or secondary, is due to God only. Thus you writ pag. 322. Whereas the jesuite doth distinguish two kinds of Religious Worship, the one Primary and simply Divine, founded upon the increate and infinite Excellency, which is due to God only: the other Secondary, founded upon the created Excellency of grace and glory, which is yielded unto Saints and Angels. To this we reply, that there be no other kinds of worship, than there be Tables of the moral law; but there are only two tables of the moral Law, the former whereof teacheth divine worship, and the second humane, civil, and of special observance. And if there be a mixed worship partly human, partly divine, so much thereof as is divine, is proper to God, and may not be imparted unto any creature, Isa. 42.8. Where God saith, My glory I will not give to another. Thus you. How grossly do you contradict yourself, and implicate in your sayings? Be not Ministers others from God, as much as Angels? If then Adoration, and Religious Adoration be given unto Ministers, how is it not Adoration given to others besides God, as much as when Angels are Religiously adored?  
Secondly, you have destroyed all you say in the first point against the Worship of Images, specially pag. 246 where you thus speak unto us: If you adore Images outwardly and relatively, than you make Images a partial object of adoration: but God himself who saith, I will not give my glory to another, Isa 24.8. hath excluded Images from copartnership with himself in Adoration. Thus you All which is proved idle by your doctrine, that Ministers are religiously to be adored. For if no Creature can be compartner with God himself in adoration how may Ministers be his partners therein, and challenge Religious adoration as due to themselues? If they may be religiously adored, & yet not be his partners in adoration against his divine Edict, My glory I will not give to another; why not Angels? Why not holy Images? What say you of the holy Sacraments? Be they not creatures aswell as Images? specially in your opinion, who hold that they be bread, and wine, and Elements unchanged in substance, and yet you say, that unto the Sacraments, and Word of the Gospel Religious adoration is due, because they have a relative union with God How then is Religious adoration due to God only? If Religious Adoration may redound from Christ unto his Sacraments, why not from Christ unto his Images▪ which have a relative Union with him, as being resemblances, & representations of him?  
Thirdly, you have overthrown and contradicted all you said about the second of the Nine points, to wit, against Oblations unto the Virgin Mary. In the old Law (say you) not only Sacrifices, but also Vows and Oblations were made to God only, 
Reply pag. 348.  Deut. 23.21. Leuit. c. 24.5.6. This law in respect of the substance is moral; and obligeth Christian people aswell in case of Oblations, as of Sacrifices. Now, by what authority, and right can the Roman Church abrogate this law in whole, or part, and appropriating Sacrifice unto God, make Oblations common to God and Saints? Thus you very vainly; not only in regard that the Text of Deuteronomy doth not say, that Vows and Promises are to be made unto God only, but no more, then that if one make a Vow unto God, he must be careful to keep it; whence to infer that Vows and Promises may not be made unto men or Saints, but to God only, is ridiculous. The text also of Leuiticu● saith, that Oblations and gifts are to be made unto God, but that to God only, not a word. And to say, giving of gifts to be proper unto God only, is foolish, except you mean gifts and oblations by way of Sacrifice, as unto the author of all gifts & fountain of Being. For what more daily and quotidian then for men to make presents, and oblations the one to the other, specially unto Kings and Princes in testimony of their duty? But as I say, your discourse is vain, not only in respect of your idle cyphering of Scripture, but also because yourself demolish this your Doctrine, by saying, or supposing the contrary, to wit, that Oblations by way of Religion, may be made unto Ministers. That this is by you supposed, I prove.  
To show that Ministers are Religiously to be adored, you cipher 2. Cor. 8.5. where S. Paul saith of the Church of Macedonia: 
Reply pa. 224. lin. 26.  They gave themselves first unto God, & then by the will of God, unto us. By which text you cannot conclude Religious Adoration to be due unto Ministers, but by arguing in this manner: They unto whom men by way of Religion and devotion give & offer themselves, are Religiously adored, because oblations be Divine & Religious worship: The Church of Macedonia did by way of Religion and devotion, offer themselves unto S. Paul, because he was a Minister: Ergo, Unto Ministers Religious adoration is to be given. This I say must be the force of your argument. For if the Macedonians did not by way of Religion, & devotion offer themselves unto S. Paul, how can you show that by giving themselves unto him, they did Religiously adore him, because he was a Minister? Now, if it be granted, that gifts and oblations by way of Religion may be made unto Ministers, your discourse against Oblations unto Saints is everuated, and falleth to the ground. For thus I argue. If oblations may be made to God only, why are they made unto Ministers? If they may be made unto creatures, why not unto Saints and Angels, as well as unto Ministers? If oblations be proper unto God, how dare Ministers make themselves fellows with God in this point of his Honour? If they be not proper unto God, why do you reprove us for offering gifts, and vows unto the blessed Virgin his Mother? Hear you are so taken, that you cannot shift away, nor evade.  
Fourthly and principally, by this doctrine that Religious Adoration is due unto Ministers, you overthrow all you say in the Third point against giving worship, specially Religious unto blessed Saints and Angels For if Ministers may be religiously adored with reference unto God, why not Saints, why not Angels? You allege 
(d) Matth. 10.14.  Scriptures that affirm Ministers to be the messengers of God, and threaten punishment unto such as will not admit of them. But I pray you, be not Angel's God's Messengers as much as Ministers, yea in a more high, holy, & excellent sort, being all ministering Spirits sent in service for them, that partake the inheritance of salvation? Hebr. 1.23.  
You bring Matth. 10.42. He that shall give to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say he shall not lose his reward. How can you hence in force, that divine and Religious worship is due unto Ministers, rather than unto any poor Christian, Lazar, or Beggar, of whom Christ saith, 
(e) Matth. 25.40.  Whatsoever you do to one of my least ones, you do unto me? If Saints living upon earth, that be the lively images of Christ may not be honoured with Religious adoration, though what is done to them Christ taketh as done to himself; what little colour and pretext can you Ministers allege, why we should honour you with Religious Adoration?  
You produce Galat. 4.14. where the Apostle saith unto the Galathians; You received me as an Angel of God, even as Christ jesus. Who seethe not that this makes rather for adoration of Angels then of ministers? S. Paul thought the Galathians did much, in that they received him as an Angel: But you say, we must worship Ministers, more than Angels, to wit, with Religious Adoration, which is due to God only.  
To the same purpose, you cite two Fathers S. Ambrose, and S. Gregory. S. Ambrose epist. 26. saith: Domino def●rtur, cùm seruulus honoratur; the Lord is reverenced, when the servant is honoured. S. 
(f) Super Reg. lib. 5. cap. 1. Quam reverendi sunt optimi Pastores Ecclesiae Sanctae liquet. Dum enim Deo fideliter seruiunt, tanto ei amoris vinculo coniunguntur, ut quidquid eis ingeritur, Divinae iniuriae ascribatur.  Gregory writes, that good Pastors who serve God faithfully are so conjoined with him in the bond of love, as what is done against them is taken as injury offered unto God. How do these texts conclude Religious adoration to be due to your Ministerial worships rather than unto Angels? I pray you Sir, be not Saints & Angels the faithful servants of God, his friends? Be they not conjoined with him in love as much as any Minister? Why then should Religious worship be due to Ministers, & their Et caetera's, and not to Saints, their Relics & Images?  
That Saints and Angels be the friends and faithful servants of God, we certainly know; that you Ministers be such, how can you make it apparent or certain? And if you cannot, why may not we argue against your worships as you argue against Images pag. 233. I am taught by learned Vasquez that the Devil may lurk in Images, and our Adversary cannot prove that Christ is present, or assistant unto them. Now it seems unreasonable to worship that which may receive the Devil, when on the other side one cannot be certain that it have any fellowship with Christ. This your argument against Images is stronger against Religious Adoration of Ministers. For of the Images we are certain, that they represent Christ Crucified unto us, & we feel this their force and efficacy in our hearts, when we worship Christ in them But that Ministers may receive the Devil, that the Devil may lurk in them, we are 
(g) Luther tom. 2. Ie●iensi. fol. 68 saith of Carolostadius: Puto non uno Diabolo obsessum fuisse miserabilem illum hominem. And of Zwinglian Ministers he saith, That the Devil now & ever dwelleth in them, & that they have a blasphemous breast insatanized, supersatanized and persatanized. See the place in the book of the Tigurine Divines confess. Tigur. An. 1544. fol. 3.  taught by Luther who affirmeth so much of diverse Ministers, and by other Ministers that 
(h) The Tigurine Divines in the place alleged say: Lutherus cum suis Diabolis. And Zwinglius: En ut hunc hominem Satan totus occupare conetur. Tom. 2. respon ad Confess Lutheri. fol. 478  aver no less of him That Ministers be Christ's fellows, or have fellowship with Christ, that Christ is present by sanctity and grace with any of them, you cannot make certain; yea according to your Tenet, Christ doth not certainly, and infallibly assist the whole Church, much less is it certain and infallible, that he is present and assistant unto every Minister. Wherefore seeing it is certain that the Devil may lurk in Ministers, and it is not certain & infallible, that Christ is assistant unto them, we may conclude by your principles, that it is unreasonable they should be worshipped, specially with Religious adoration, which yet you do require that men yield unto you, in regard of your union with God.   

The second Error. That that cannot be the true Church which hath wicked Visible Pastors. §. 2.  
ANOTHER error no less absurd and sottish than this you maintain, to wit, that that cannot be the true Church whose visible Rulers are, or have been wicked or impious. Thus you writ pag. 100 Wicked persons according to S. Augustine, are not indeed and verily the body of Christ: And again, they are not in the body of Christ which is the Church, because Christ cannot have damnable members. And Bernard saith, that it is evident, that Christ is not the head of an Hypocrite: but the visible Rulers of the popish Church have many times been, as our Adversaries themselves report, not only Hypocrites, but also apparently monstrous and damnable sinners. Therefore the Popish Church cannot be the Catholic Church out of which no salvation is to be had. And again. pag. 54. you argue in this manner. They which are not of the body of Christ, nor of the house of God, really and in truth, do not constantly preserve, or faithfully deliver Apostolical traditions, nor are they such as the spirit of God infallibly & always directeth in their public doctrine. But wicked persons saith S. Augustine, retain the figure or outward shape of a member, but they are not in truth the body of Christ, Non sunt de compage domus Dei, they are not of the frame of the house of Christ. Ergo. Thus you.  
How false and absurd this your Doctrine is, I will not stand to show by Scriptures, and Fathers, which are clear and plentiful in this point. For though Christ as he is the head and fountain of sanctifying Grace cannot have wicked and damnable members that receive influence from him, yet as he is the head and fountain of all spiritual government and authority, he may have damnable subjects and members, and from him power and authority may flow unto them. But omitting this, I will make your Folly and Ignorance apparent, by proving that this your argument is inept, in respect of form; & in the matter so absurd, as you contradict yourself, you overthrow your own Church, you cross the main stream of Protestant Doctrine.  
First your argument even in respect of form is fond, for you change the medium or means of proof, arguing from the time preterite, to the present: 
(i) Reply pag. 100L. in fine.   

Wolves hypocrites, & impious Persons BE NOT the true Church.  
Romish Prelates HAVE BEEN Hypocrites, Wolves, and impious Persons. Ergo.  
The Romish Prelates be not the true Church.   
Who doth not feel this manner of arguing to be inept, as good, & no better than this?  

A sucking Child is not a Preacher and Minister of the word.  
Francis White hath been a sucking Child. Ergo.  
He is not a Preacher or Minister of the word.   
Hence, though your paradox, that the Church which hath a wicked man for Pastor cannot be the true Church, were true & your tale, that some Popes have been wicked, were also granted; yet it is not hence consequent, that the Roman Church is not now the true Church, but at the most that it was not the true Church for the time that it had some wicked Pope for supreme Pastor.  
Secondly you contradict yourself about the doctrine, that wicked Pastors cannot faithfully preserve and deliver the true word of salvation: for pag. 52. you thus write to the contrary. The promises of Christ made to the Church concerning his presence & assistance to his Sacraments, preached and administered according to his commandment are fulfilled, when WICKED Persons execute the office, and perform the work of outward Ministry. For although the wicked, like the Carpenters of Noah's ark, reap no benefit to themselues, yet God almighty CONCURRETH with their ministry, being his own Ordinance, for the salvation of all devout Communicants. Thus you. If this be true, as it is most certain, then may wicked persons faithfully and constantly deliver Apostolical Traditions about matter of Salvation. This sequel I prove. They with whose ministry God doth concur for the salvation of all devout & worthy communicants, being bound so to do, by his promise, do constantly and faithfully deliver Apostolical Traditions concerning the doctrine of salvation, and are infallibly directed so to do. This is evident, because when God concurreth with his Ministers to teach the truth, they never err, nor deliver in matter of faith and salvation false doctrine: But God doth still and infallibly concur with them, with whom to concur he hath bound himself by promise ever and always▪ even to the consummation of the world. Wherefore if God hath bound himself to his Church, that he will concur even with the wicked Ministers of his word, in their teaching for the salvation of all devout & worthy communicants, as you affirm pag 52 lin. 18. then wicked persons may deliver faithfully & constantly Apostolical traditions concerning faith and salvation, and are infallibly directed so to do; which you deny pag. 54 lin. 6. manifestly contradicting yourself within less than a leaf.  
Thirdly, you overthrow your own protestant Church. For if that cannot be the true Church directed by God, according to his infallible promise, wherein wicked men have sitten as visible rulers & governors, than Protestants and all of their communion cannot be the true Church out of which salvation is not had▪ For I hope they will not be so impudent as to deny, but they have had some wicked men for their rulers and Pastors. Was not King Henry the eight ruler & Governor of the Protestant Church, and yet their own Histories paint him forth as a monster for beastliness, cruelty, and impiety? Was not Cranmer a most wicked persecutor▪ and murderer of diverse Saints, not only of Catholics, but of sundry Foxian martyrs who were by him sent to the fire? And yet he was a ruler & governor in the Protestant Church. Wherefore the argument which you set in distinct letters, & lines as of special weight, may be with the same force & form applied against your Protestant Church in so many words, only by placing the words Protestant in lieu of Romish.  

Wolves, Hypocrites, & impious Persons are not the holy Catholic Church.  
Protestant Prelates and Visible Rulers have been Wolves, Hypocrites, & impious persons. Ergo.  
Protestants are not the Holy Catholic church, out of which there is no salvation.   
Fourthly, what more opposite to the common stream, even of the Protestant Doctrine, then that that Church cannot be the temple & house of God, in which wicked and impious men sit, or have sitten as visible rulers? Commonly all Ministers (foolishly (I confess) yet earnestly) endeavour to prove that the Pope is Antichrist, because he sitteth in the Temple and Church of God, as Christ's Vicar, and as her supreme Visible Head & Ruler under Christ: which Doctrine you yourself suppose as certain pag. 588. were you make this Exclamation: What a misery will it be, if it fall out (as it is certain it will) that at the Day of judgement, the greatest part of English Romistes be found to have followed the man of sin, the son of perdition, who exalteth himself above all that is called God, so that he sit in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God. Thus you. I urge not the folly of this your Exclamation, in that it is a fond supposition of the Question, yea a taking of that, as certain, which not only catholics, but also learned Protestants deny. Yourself, have you not lately since the writing of this Reply, approved 
(k) The Appeal unto Caesar of Richard Montague.  a Book by Order of his Majesty? in which that Author doth often, and earnestly 
(l) Second part. c. 5. pag. 141.  profess, not to believe the Pope to be that Antichrist; further affirming that Protestants, out of affection have been to violently forward to pronounce the Pope is that man of sin & son of perdition: yea that some, out of violent and transported passion no doubt, make it an Article of their Creed; whereas their arguments be so far from the force of demonstrative, as they are not persuasive. Thus this Author in that Book which you have subscribed unto, as containing 
(m) See the Approbation I Francis White etc.  nothing but what is agreeable to the public Faith, and Doctrine established in the Church of England. And yet here you say, It is certain, that the Pope is the man of sin, & son of perdition; so showing yourself to be of their number whom the said Author in that very place▪ doth rebuke as Omnium horarum homines, Halters in opinions for private ends.  
I omit also your folly in exclaiming at the misery of English Romists, for that they adhere unto your supposed Antichrist, not marking that to cleave to the Antichrist of your forming, must even according to your own principles be singular happiness. For Antichrist according to your Tenet, doth sit & govern in the House and Temple of God, and so by the same breath wherewith you make men vassals of Antichrist, you make them Gods Domestics, his House, his Temple. Will it be misery to be found such at the day of judgement? Yea rather the Church of Christ, the Temple of God being only one, out of which no salvation is had, what a misery will it be at the day of judgement, when by your own mouth, you shall be convinced to have forsaken that company which you confess to be the Church and Temple of God, through fear of your own shadow, and fancy? For what can be more foolish, then to fasten the name of Antichrist upon the Governor of the Christian Church, who doth daily profess to believe in Christ jesus the son of God and Saviour of the world? who by his Adherents doth more than all the world besides defend, and propagate amongst Pagans his most holy Name & Religion? But to let these things pass, mark how you contradict yourself in saying on the one side that, that cannot be the House & Temple of God which now hath, or in former times hath had wicked Pastors: On the other side that, that is the House and Temple of God, in which the Man of sin, that is, a succession of wicked Pastors, hath a long while for many ages governed, and doth rule and govern So hard is it for men blinded with passion against Christian Doctrine, derived by succession from the Apostles, to run in their passionate conceits, without falling into the pit of open contradiction, whereby their folly comes to be manifest unto all men.   

The third Error. You profess Infidelity about the Blessed Sacrament. §. 3.  
THUS you writ pag. 179. To that part of the jesuits speech, that we deny the Real Presence, or else the main Article of the Creed, that Christ is still in hea●en, because we will not allow a body in two places at ●nce: I answer, We cannot grant, that one individual ●ody may be in many distant places at one, and the same instant of time, until the papals DEMONSTRATE THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF, by testimony of Scripture, or the ancient Tradition of the Church, ●r by apparent reason. Thus you. This is plain dea●ing, and open profession of Infidelity. For what ●s heretical obstinacy, but to reject the word of God, ●bout the mysteries of our Faith, in the plain, express, and literal sense, until the possibility of ●hat sense be first demonstrated? No Heretic was e●er so barbarous as to prefer his reason beyond God's word so fare, as to affirm, that the word of God, contrary to his reason, was false. Their impiety was to reject God's word about some mystery of faith in the literal sense, flying to moral and mystical interpretation, because they could not comprehend, and therefore would not believe the possibility of the plain, and literal sense. The Arrians did not deny the word of Scripture, saying 
(n) 1. joan. ●. 7.  of the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, these three are one; nor the Word of Christ, 
(o) joan. 10.30.  I, and my Father are one, to be true morally, and mystically in respect of unity by singular affection and consent betwixt these three persons. They were Heretics for denying the truth of these words in the proper and substantial sense, because the same seemed to them impossible. For seeing that we might not expound the Scriptures about mysteries of faith to an easy figurative sense, when the same according to the letter goeth beyond the capacity of our understanding, God doth so often in holy Writ 
(p) Gen. 18.17. Numquid Deo quid est difficile. Hie●rm. 32.17. Non est difficile tibi omne verbum. Et v. 27. Numquid mihi difficile erit omne verbum? Luc. 1.37. Non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum. Et, Deo omnia possibilia sunt Matt. ●9. 26. Luc. 18.27. Omnia possibilia sunt credenti Mar. 9.22.  assure us, that nothing is impossible or difficile unto him; and 
(q) job. 9.10.  That he can do things incomprehensible without number: What greater obstinacy then for Christian men to profess, that they will never believe his word about the mysteries of faith, in the literal sense, until the possibility of the sense be demonstrated unto them, that is brought within the compass, and comprehension of their wit?  
You may perchance excuse yourself by saying, the words of Christ's institution, This is my body, taken in the literal sense, do not enforce, that Christ according to his corporal substance, is in two places at once. I answer, this you cannot say without contradicting not only the word of Scripture (as is proved in the Rejoinder) but also yourself. For you do plainly affirm, that this our doctrine, yea even Transubstantiation is contained in the literal sense of the words of the Institution. If (say you) the substance of bread and wine be delivered in the Eucharist, than the words are figurative, and cannot be true in the proper sense, because one individual substance cannot be predicated of another properly. Thus you 
(r) Reply pag. 3●7. : whereupon I thus argue. That without which the word of Christ cannot be true in the proper and literal sense, is enforced, and proved by the word of Christ taken in the literal sense: But except the substance of bread be absent, and Christ in lieu thereof present, according to his corporal substance, the word of Christ, This is my body, cannot be true in the literal and proper sense, as you affirm: Ergo, Transubstantiation, and the presence of Christ on earth, according to his bodily substance in lieu of bread, is enforced, & proved by the literal sense of the word of Christ's institution. Wherefore to profess (as you ●o) never to believe Christ's body to be in two places at once, until it be demonstrated unto you to be possible, is to profess you will not believe the word of God in the literal sense, about mysteries of faith further than the possibility thereof can be made evident unto you. Is not this to profess Infidelity?  
Secondly, you may say, that when you require that we demonstrate by testimony of Scripture, that a body may be in two places at once, you mean not that we bring texts of Scripture that demonstrate by reason how this is possible, but only that we bring places that expressly say that, This is possible unto God. For as you say pag. 438. In the words of our Saviour, This is my body, there is not a syllable concerning accidents without a subject, or of a bodies being in two places at once, or concerning any miracle wrought by God's omnipotency. I answer, that likewise in this text of Scripture, 
(s) joan. 1. 1●.  The Word was made flesh, there is not a syllable, that a perfect substantial nature can exist without proper personality, or that two complete natures can subsist together in the same Hypostasis, nor of any miracle done by the divine omnipotency; yet because this text of Scripture about the mystery of the incarnation cannot be true in the literal sense, except those hard & incomprehensible things be granted to be possible by divine omnipotency, we must together with the mystery implicitly believe, that God can separate proper subsistence from complete substantial natures, that two natures infinitely distant in perfection, can subsist in the same Hypostasis, though the Scripture doth not expressly so affirm. In like manner though the words of Christ, This is my body, do not expressly say, that his body may be in many places at once, nor that accidents can exist without a subject by divine omnipotency, yet because this his word whereon we ground our faith concerning this mystery, cannot (as yourself grant) be true in the proper and literal sense, except Transubstantiation, and the Presence of his body in many places at once be believed; hence we must together with the real presence and literal sense of God's word, implicitly believe these miracles to be done. Wherefore in saying, you will never believe them, except their possibility be first demonstrated unto you, through ignorance of Theology you profess Infidelity. For to resolve not to believe seeming implicancies involved in the mysteries of faith, except they be either severally expressed, as possible in God's word, or else demonstrable by reason, is the right way to believe just nothing; there being no mystery of faith which doth not imply some difficultyes, the possibility of which is neither expressly averred in scripture, nor can be demonstrated by reason.   

A fourth Example of your Ignorance in Theology. §. 4.  
I Add another Example about the Blessed Eucharist, wherein you discover gross Ignorance, not only against Theology but even common sense. And this Example may serve, as a pattern how insufficiently and impertinently you answer the jesuites argument. The jesuit pag. 406. argueth in this sort: Christ doth affirm that the Sacrament is truly, really, substantially (not the figure, and effect of his body, but) his very body: but how can consecrated bread be termed truly, really, and substantially the body of Christ, if his body be not so much as in the same place with it? Thus you answer pag. 406. To the effecting hereof, local & corporal presence is not necessary. A Father and his Son may be absent by distance of place one from the other, yet the Son is TRULY AND REALLY UNITED with his Father, so as his Father's nature is in him, and he hath right in his Father's person and state. A man's goods may be at Constantinople, and yet he living in England is a true possessor and owner of them, and he may communicate and use them, and distance of place hindereth not his right and propriety. Now, although there be a difference between things temporal and spiritual, yet thus fare there is agreement, that even as we possess temporal things being locally absent, so likewise we may receive and partake Christ's body and blood by the power of Faith, and donation of the Holy Ghost, according to a celestial and spiritual manner. Thus you. Now behold how many ways you discover gross Ignorance in this answer.  
First, were all that you say true, yet is it impertinent and ineptly brought in answer of the jesuits argument. For the question is not, whether men may receive by the virtue of Faith and donation of the holy Ghost, sanctity and grace through the merits of Christ's body and blood that are absent (for this all acknowledge to happen in Baptism, and to be possible in the Eucharist, if Christ had so ordained:) The question is about the truth of God's word whether consecrated bread may be truly and really called the body of Christ, being (as you say) a thing not only individually distinct, but also locally distant from his body. A man being in London may possess iuridically an Horse that is in the Country, is it therefore true to say, that this man in London is truly & really the Horse in the Country? A Merchant in London may have great treasures of money in Constantinople, and a right to lay them up in his Coffers at London, may one therefore showing his empty coffers at London say truly, this is a treasure of money? In like manner, suppose (which is false) that a man hath iuridicall authority over Christ's body absent, and existing in heaven, to dispose thereof at his pleasure, may he therefore be said to be truly and really Christ's body? May one therefore showing the Sacrament, being in your Tenet an empty thing in respect of containing Christ's bodily substance, say truly thereof, This is really Christ's body and corporal substance? who will maintain such absurdities that is sober? Wherefore your discourse that a man may truly posesse a thing absent, serves nothing to satisfy the jesuites question, how can consecrated bread be truly, verily, & really the body of Christ, if he be not so much as present in place with it?  
Secondly, what more absurd than what you affirm, that a man may not only in right possess, but really and truly use his things that be absent? Can a man in London use, and ride on his horse that is at York! Or a Merchant in Bristol feed on his grapes that are growing in his vineyard in Spain? If they cannot (and it is ridiculous to say, they can) how can a man existing on earth, receive truly and really Christ distant from him, as fare as the highest heaven? Receive him (I say) not in a sign only, & according to gracious Effects, but even according to his body and corporal substance, with their mouth of flesh. For Christ did not say, This is a figure of my body, or, this is soule-feeding grace given by the merit of my body and blood; but, This is my body, even to your corporal mouth, wherewith I bid you, to take, and eat it.  
Thirdly, who can forbear laughing to hear you so soberly affirm, that the Son that is absent from his Father, as far as Constantinople is from London, is not only morally by Love and Affection, but TRULY and REALLY UNITED with his Father? For Union is the way unto Unity; so that whensoever two individual things are truly & really united, by this union is made a third individual thing distinct from each of them a part, & from all other individual things. When soul and body come to be united, by this union is produced a third substance, to wit, a man composed of soul and body. When two waters that were severed come to join together, there ariseth one third water, wherein the two lesser waters are included as parts. But Father and Son, the one in London, the other at Constantinople, do not compose a third individual nature constant of them both, wherein they both are contained, as is most evident: Ergo, It is ridiculous to affirm, that the Father in London, is truly and really united with his Son in Constantinople.  
Finally, put case there were true and real unity betwixt Father and Son, so that the son might be said to be one with his father, truly and properly, in respect of kind, or specifical Identity; what can this serve to show that consecrated bread, remaining bread in nature & kind, may be said to be the body of Christ, or the same with it? Had Christ said of another man's body, This is my Body, you might have construed it thus, This is my body, that is, a body of the same kind and nature with mine; but Christ saying of that which was bread, this is my Body, how can you understand this to be true in respect of specifical Unity? Is bread of the same kind and nature as Christ's body? I am sure, being afore warned of this absurdity, you will not dare so to teach. What then, doth specifical Identity or unity in nature and kind serve to show, that consecrated bread remaining bread in kind, nature, & essence, may be truly & really Christ's body? Certainly Christ did affirm that the thing contained within the shape of bread, was his individual body, not another individual body of the same kind. This cannot be true verily, and according to propriety of speech, as you grant, if the substance of bread remain, much less if also the substance of Christ's body be locally absent. The jesuits argument than doth convince, that the Sacrament cannot be truly, really, substantially Christ's body, if the body of Christ be not locally indistant from the same.   

A fifth Example, About Satisfaction. §. 5.  
I will produce yet another Example of your Ignorance, by which you contradict Protestants, yea yourself in the very same page, and establish our Catholic doctrine of Satisfaction and Purgatory, against which in that place you earnestly dispute. Thus you wit pag. 540. The difference between the Pontificians & us in this dostrin is, THAT WE BELIEVE A REMAINDER of TEMPORAL Affliction, AFTER the REMISSION of the GVILTE of Sin, in this life only, for Chastisement, ERUDITION, and PROBATION. They maintain a Remainder of Temporal Punishment, not only in this life, but after the same in Purgatory. Further, we believe, that the Pain of Chastisement inflicted upon penitent sinners, may by prayers of faith, exercise of virtue, humiliation and mortification be REMOVED, MITIGATED, or converted to the increase of grace and glory in them, that with patience & holiness endure the same in this life. But we deny, that either any pain followeth just persons after their decease, or that they can in this life by any good works, merit release of any temporal punishment, or satisfy the Divine justice for the fault, or guilt of any sins on their behalf, much less for others.  
Thus you▪ On the one side denying, against Catholics, Temporal Pain in the next life, and on the other, granting against Protestant's a Remaynder of Temporal Chastisement, for sin remitted after the remission of the guilt. Whereby you contradict yourself, yea establish the possibility of superaboundant Satisfaction. You lay Principles which unanswerably enforce temporal pain for remiss Penitents in the next world; Which three things I will in order demonstrate, that so it may appear, that through Ignorance you have yourself dissolved & broken in pieces the whole frame of your Voluminous Reply, in every point of Controversy proposed by his Majesty, and handled therein.  
First, you contradict yourself; for in this very pag. 540. against the Remainder of temporal pain thus you writ: That which is so forgiven that after pardon it is not mentioned or remembered, and which is cast behind God's back, & thrown into the bottom of the sea, and which can no where be found, and which is blotted out of the Debt-book of the Almighty, is not taken away by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesser, but by a free and full condonation of all vindictive punishment. But the holy Scripture, and the Fathers teach such a remission of sin on God's part to the penitent. Thus you: what clearer contradiction can be devised then is between these two sentences, Remission of sin is made not by commutation of a greater punishment into a less, but by free and full condonation of all vindictive punishment: &, There is a remainder of temporal pain after the remission of guilt of sin, not only for the trial and erudition of the penitent, but also for Chastisement, which may be removed, or mitigated by mortification and penitential works? What clearer contradiction, I say, can be devised? For temporal pain inflicted upon penitent sinners by way of chastisement after the remission of the guilt of their sin, is vindictive Punishment. You profess in the end of this page to believe Temporal pain to remain, not only by way of Probation and Erudition, but even by way of chastisement, after the remission of the guilt of their sin: Therefore you contradict what you say in the beginning of this page, That remission of sin is free, and full condonation of all vindictive punishment.  
Again; Condonation of sin, whereby eternal punishment is changed into temporal, is remission of sin, by commutation of a greater chastisement into a less, to wit, of eternal into temporal, as is most evident. But in the end of this page, you teach, that sin is so remitted, as the guilt of sin, and eternal Damnation is changed into a remainder of temporal affliction for chastisement of the penitent sinner. Wherefore, if the changing of Eternal punishment into Temporal be commutation of greater punishment into less; then by granting, in the end of the cited page, a remainder of Temporal Affliction, after the remission of the Eternal, you overthrow what you taught in the beginning of the same, that remission of sin is not made by commutation of greater punishment into less.  
Secondly, this your doctrine of the remainder of temporal pain, after the remission of the guilt of sin, proveth that penitent saints may make compensant, yea superaboundant satisfaction, in manner as Catholics teach; for in the remainder of temporal affliction we may consider, and distinguish two things; the greatness of the pain reserved, and the greatness of Gods remaining anger against sin remitted, which he doth yet temporally punish. If we regard the greatness of God's just anger and offence, we hold 
(t) Si ad ipsam offensam Divinae Maiestatis respiciamus, quatenus Deus videlicet sic homini manet infensus, ut merit● velit illum subire malum Poenae Temporalis; non potest pro eiusmodi offensa fieri iusta & prorsus aequalis compensatio à nobis. Nam illa offensa habet ex parte Divinae Maiestatis quandam infinitatem. Gregor. de Valent. Tom. 4. in D. Tho. disput. 7. q. 14. punct. 1. col. 1756.  that no compensant, or equal satisfaction is made in this respect, the offence having a kind of infinity from the infinite majesty of the person offended. But if we regard the greatness of the penalty reserved, a man may remove the same by satisfaction compensant, yea superaboundant. This may be made evident by examples. Let us suppose the remainder of Temporal affliction reserved, be equal unto the pain of forty days fast in bread & water in one whole year, why may not a just man fast in this manner forty days in a year, & so offer unto God satisfaction just & equal? Also why may he not fast fifty days in a year with only bread and water, & so offer satisfaction superaboundant? Superaboundant, I say, not in respect of the Majesty of God offended, but in respect of the temporal reserved punishment: So that granting, as you do, a temporal remainder of chastisement after the remission of sin, to be removed or mitigated by penitential works, if you be in your right judgement, and ponder the matter, you cannot deny (as you do) that compensant and superaboundant satisfaction may be made for the same.  
Thirdly, this your doctrine doth evidently enforce Temporal and Purgatory pains in the next life. This I prove. Unto sins of equal offence and heynousmes against God, remitted by the same measure of faith and contrition, the same punishment is due in justice, after the remission of the guilt. For God being just, doth never punish sin remitted with more or longer affliction than it deserves: Go● forbidden (saith 
(u) job. 34.10.11.  job) that there should be impiety in God, or iniquity in the Almighty. For he will repay unto man his own work, and render unto every one according to their ways: nor in punishing the remitted sins of his servants is he an acceptour of persons. Hence unto every sin, as great as David's, remitted upon no greater contrition than had David, as great temporal punishment is in justice due, & shallbe inflicted▪ as was inflicted upon David for his remitted sin▪ This being evident, I assume: But we see innumerable penitent men who have committed greater sins than David, and yet have not had greater, nor so great measure of faith, nor of sorrow and contrition for their sins as had David, that die presently after their repentance, without enduring either by Divine infliction, or by voluntary assumption, such grievous temporal afflictions, as David did: Therefore innumerable penitent Saints depart this life, being obnoxious unto as great, or greater punishment, after the remission of their sins, as David did endure after the remission of his. This supposed what shall become of these men? They cannot go to hell, the guilt of sin, & of eternal damnation being graciously remitted unto them. They 
(x) Non introibit in eam aliquid coinquinatum Apoc. 21.27.  cannot go presently to heaven, for no stained thing, that is, no person unto whom punishment is due in justice, can enter into that seat of pure Reward, joy & Felicity· Wherefore, seeing you say, that unto sin remitted a certain measure of temporal pain is due, to be removed or mitigated by works of mortification, it is forcible, that you also admit temporal Purgatory-paines in the next life, for them that die before this debt of temporal chastisement be satisfied in this world.   

Your Ignorance about the holy Cross, and the Water of jordan. §. 6.  
CONCERNING the Holiness and Honour of our Saviour's Cross, you show want of judgement in Theology. That the liveless & insensible Cross, (say you, pag. 235.) whereupon Christ suffered, was sanctified by his Passion, must be believed when Divine Ordinance is produced to make the same manifest. And again, pag. 236. Those things which at the instant time of Christ's Passion had a residence in his body, and were joined thereunto (per contactum physicum,) as instruments of his passion, were not thereby made most highly Venerable, because there is no Divine Authority, or any other sufficient reason to prove this assertion. In these words you show great Ignorance of Christian Theology, yet such as is common to those of the Puritan stamp, A Malignant Generation 
(a) See the Appeal unto Caesar, which our Doctor warrants, as containing nothing, but Catholic English doctrine. pag. 281. The Cross is as much vilifyed by furious Puritans in these days, as ever it was by Pagans in the days of the Fathers.  against the Cross of our Redeemer. Wherefore I should not account to deny Sanctity unto the Cross notable in you, did you not presently in the very same page attribute Holiness and Sanctification unto the ground whereon Moses stood, & unto the water of jordan. Thus you writ▪ Whiles God appeared to Moses in the Bramble ush, the ground whereon Moses stood is called holy. Exod. 3.6. But this Holiness being, only relative, transitory, and denominative, and not inherent and durable, the former vision and apparition being finished, the ground whereon Moses stood returned to his old condition. The like may be said of the water of jordan, considered when Christ was Baptised with it, and again considered when his baptism was finished, and out of the use. Thus you.  
Now I pray you, what reason can you assign why the Land whereon Moses stood, was Sanctified, and made Relatively Holy▪ during the time of the Divine apparition, & not the Cross, at the least, for the instant time of our Lord's Passion thereon? You will say that no Scripture doth warrant the terming of the Cross Holy, whereas the land whereon Moses stood, is called Holy, Exod. 3.6. But what want of understanding is this, not to see how the Scripture terming the ground whereon Moses stood Holy, & commanding him to put off his shoes out of reverence unto it, because confining on the Bush wherein God appeared, or rather an Angel bearing his person? What blindness (I say) is it not to see, that this very Text doth à fortiori, more strongly & forcibly warrant the terming the Cross holy and venerable, & ●he doing reverence unto it, at the least, whiles Christ ●anged thereon? As the law commanding the jews ●o be grateful unto God for his delivering them out ●f the Land of servitude, by killing the First-begottē●f Egypt, doth à fortiori, charge Christians to be thankful for their redemption from sin by the ●eath of God's only Son: Even so, the Scripture ●alling the land whereon Moses stood holy and venerable, in regard of a Divine apparition, nigh unto ●he same, doth à fortiori charge men to respect the Cross as Holy and Venerable, which God even in ●erson corporally & substantially united unto man, ●id touch with his sacred body, & imbrue with his precious blood, in offering the sacrifice for our Redemption.  
But what will you say of the Water of jordan? What Divine manifest Ordinance can you bring to say ●he same was Relatively Holy, and Venerable during our Saviour's Baptism, more than to ascribe the like Sanctity and Venerability unto the Cross, for the instant time of our Saviour's suffering thereon? And whereas you say the Cross was liveless and insensible, seeming to assign this as a reason why the same ●ould not be made Holy and Venerable, what more ●ayne? Was not the ground whereon Moses stood, ●as not the water of jordan as liveless & insensible ●s the wood of the Cross? Verily I cannot imagine what here you may reply & am persuaded that God ●n his providence would have you utter in print this ●ruth about the water of jordan, that thereby you ●ight be convinced that no reason but only passion ●eades you to deny the Holiness, and Venerability of our Saviour's Crosse. And seeing, when the blind lead the blind both fall into the pit, what wonder that you following the blindness of passion, against the Church's Tradition, be fallen into so open a pit of folly, as to make the Land whereon Moses stood, and the water of jordan more holy and venerable, than the wood of the Altar of our Redemption?  
If any demand, why the Cross is still worshipped after it ceased to touch our Saviour's body, and no● the water of jordan? the reason of disparity is evident. For things sanctified by the presence, & touch of some sacred person, still remain holy and venerable until the same be lawfully applied unto profane & vulgar use Thus the Chair of State being civilly sanctified, that is, aparted from common & ordinary service, remains so perpetually, until the same be lawfully applied unto vulgar employment. I say lawfully, for if the same be vulgarly used unlawfully, and in contempt, it looseth not sanctity, but is still holy de iure, and hath a right to be venerably used. Now the ground whereon Moses stood, the apparition being finished; the water of jordan, our Sauiour● baptism being ended, were presently and lawfully applied to profane use, no custom or law forbidding the same, and so they presently ceased to be holy.  
But the Cross whereon our Saviour suffered, & which he imbrueed with his blood in the sacrifice 〈◊〉 the world's redemption, was hereby made so holy & venerable to Christian imagination, as by Christia● custom the same is unappliable to vulgar and pro●phane use: which reverence to the Cross, is so in●graffed in Christian hearts, as I am persuaded that 〈◊〉 the Protestant would abhor the Puritan as profane, that should use the wood of the Cross, in vulgar manner, as for example to make a peg thereof. Wherefore the Cross being by Christian custom & devotion for ever unappliable to profane use, the ●ame is durably holy, and venerable, & shall be worshipped, so long as Christianity shall last in the world.  
And seeing in this place you use the terms of Relative, Transitory, & Denominative holiness, let me request of you, what reason you have to rail, as you do, at the jesuit for using the terms of outward, relative, and transitory worship? The jesuit having proved by Scripture, and the Principles of faith, that Christ his Image is to be honoured, saith pag. ●43. that this honour is given outwardly, relatively, and transitorily to the image; inwardly, affectuously, absolutely, finally unto Christ: for this you come upon him, in this sort pag. 244. How prove you by divine revelation & testimony, that adoration is to be performed according to ●our distinction of outwardly, relatively, transitorily unto Images? Against such lose, and voluntary presumption we say with S. Chrysostome Divinae scripturae testimonia sequamur, neque feramus eos qui temerè quiduis blaterant: We are to follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, testimony of Divine Scripture, and not to regard them which as Rovers, & without ground blatter out what they please.  
Behold how bitter you are against the jesuit: And why? Is it for his using distinctions that are not verbally, and expressly found in Scripture? Then you are blind not to see yourself to be guilty of the same fault: for where do you find in Scripture the terms of relative, transitory, & denominative holiness? Is it, because his distinction of Absolute and Relative worship is not to be proved by Scripture, as yours may? Then you are so shallow in your thoughts as not to perceive a thing, not only clear in Scripture, but also near to yourself. When the Scripture saith, 
Matth. 4.10.  Adore thy Lord God, what is this, but absolute, and inward affectuous worship? When the same Scripture saith, Bow thyself to the footstool of his feet, for he is holy, what is this, but relative worship, 
Psal. 98.5.  that is outward bowing before God's footstool, inwardly referred unto his person?  
Yea the jesuits Relative worship of inanimate things that have outward reference to God, is proved by the very text by which you prove the relative holiness of the same, Exod. 3.6. Put off the shoes of thy feet, because the ground whereon thou standest is holy. The land whereon thou standest is holy; Behold relative holiness: Put off thy shoes, & presume not to touch the same but barefoot; Behold relative worship, that is outward respect to the land, inwardly referred to worship God there appearing. What shall I say more? the jesuits distinction is so clear and near unto you, as it is not only thus to be proved by your very text of Scripture, but also intrinsically involved in your distinction, as by this argument I demonstrate.  
Unto things that be holy, Honour and Veneration is due, and this of higher or lower kind, according to the state and degree of their holiness. This proposition no man that knoweth what he saith, will deny.  
But (as you distinguish) there be two kinds or states of holy things, some being absolutely & inherently holy, other only relatively and outwardly.  
Ergo, There are two kinds of worship's due unto holy things, the one inward and absolute, the other only relative and outward.  
And, that the image of Christ is Relatively holy, as having an outward visible reference unto a person, inwardly and infinitely holy, you can not deny, except you want either notice of the Gospel, or eyes in your head. You may then see, how wrongfully you up brayed the jesuit with lose and voluntary presumption, with blattering out at Rovers what he pleaseth, and how justly he might turn the 〈◊〉 of this sharp Reproach upon yourself, for your denying that sanctification unto the wood of ●he Cross at Christ's passion, which you grant to the ●ater of jordan in his Baptism.   

A seaventh Example, about Traditions. §. 7.  
● will conclude this section with an example or two 〈◊〉 of your simplicity in using of distinctions. For your ●istinctions are either senseless, or else you establish ●hat doctrine which most of all you impugn. Take his example hereof. The jesuits principle that, there 〈◊〉 Tradition unwritten, & that this is the prime ground of ●ayth, more fundamental than Scripture, you most largely labour to refel, and term it pag. 91. an Anti-●hristian, and impudent assertion, to depress the written ●ord of God, & exalt the profane, bastardly, Apocryphal traditions of the Pope. This is bitter enough, & yet cer●●ynly you teach that there be traditions maintaining and upholding the Scripture in authority, or 〈◊〉 you speak ineptly, not knowing what you affirm. For some two pages before this your reproachful words, to wit pag. 89. you thus distinguish about Traditions: The Church hath no perpetual Traditions but such, as are EITHER contained in Scripture, OR which are subseruient to MAINTAIN the Faith, Verity and AUTHORITY of the Scripture, & the doctrine thereof. Thus you.  
I demand of you; These subseruient Traditious about faith and doctrine, be they contained in Scripture or not? If they be your distinction is senseless, one member thereof not being condistinct against the other: for if subseruient traditions be traditions contained in Scripture, what more inept then to say, traditions either contained in Scripture, or subseruient? If they be not contained in Scripture, but condistinct from them, then according to your distinction there be some traditions, not contained in Scripture, which maintain and uphold the authority of Scripture, and the verity and doctrine thereof. If you grant this (as you must, unless you will grant your distinction be void of judgement) then must you also grant tradition to be more fundamental than Scripture. For thus I argue: That which is the ground of the authority of Scripture, is more fundamental than Scripture: That which doth maintain, and uphold the authority of Scripture, is the ground and foundation of the authority of Scripture: Ergo, That which doth uphold and maintain the authority of Scripture, is more fundamental than Scripture. Now yourself ascribe unto Tradition subseruient, condistinct against written Tradition, the office of maintaining the authority of Scripture. So that, either you know not what you do write, or else by your own distinctions you are convinced to establish that very doctrine which elsewhere you so sharply censure, as Antichristian, impudent, profane, bastardly. Certainly you are a silly Disputant about matters of Theodogy.  
No more sense or judgement is there in the distinction you make of holy Believers into triumphant & militant pag. 49. The term (Church) (say you) is taken in the holy Scripture for the universal number of holy believers in all ages: and more strictly for the whole number of holy believers under the new Testament, Hebr. 12.23. Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27. And thus it comprehendeth both the Church militant & triumphant. Thus you: distinguishing the Church of believers into militant and Triumphant; whence it is consequent that the Triumphant Saints in heaven are believers. What more ridiculous, and against the prime and known Notion of Triumphant Saints? It may be God permitted you to stumble upon this gross simplicity, through want of reflection, that you might thereby be warned to reflect upon the foulness of another doctrine, which wittingly & wilfully you maintain, though being no less exorbitant than this. The doctrine is, that your Protestant Militant Church is a multitude, who 
(a) john White in his Defence pag. 309.  by divine illumination see manifestly the truth of things believed of the Blessed Trinity, and other mysteries; & that, you are like not unto men 
(b) Francis White Orthodox pag. 108.  which see a fare off a certain obscure glimmering of the light, but unto men that coming to the place where the light is, behold the said light in itself. Verily to term the Church militant, a multitude of BEHOLDERS resolved of truth, by manifest light & evidence, is as Exotic, and as idle Gibberish in Christian Theology, as to call the Church triumphant a multitude of BELIEVERS, that war and walk by Faith. As for your Protestant triumphant Church, if they did not formerly believe in this life the word of God, without seeing the light, lustre, and resplendent verity of the doctrine thereof (as you pretend they did not,) I do not doubt but they are believers in the next world, to wit, in the number of them, of whom the Apostle writeth, 
joan. 2.9.  credunt & contremiscunt.    

Ignorance in Scripture. SECT. iv  
CONCERNING Holy Scripture you brag intolerably in every page of your Reply, how the same standeth clearly on your side, and that the jesuit hath not been able to prove any of the Nine Points by Scripture. How vain this your vant is, doth appear by the Rejoinder wherein you are proved almost in every controversy to forsake the literal and plain sense of Scripture, and to device now figurative, typical, and mystical interpretations. How idly also you dispute out of Scriptures for matters of greatest moment, which you most confidently maintain in your Religion, is made evident by what hath been showed, concerning your arguing for the pretended Divine Ordinance, binding ignorant Laymen to read the Scripture. Notwithstanding that your ignorance herein may more indeniably appear, I will add here some other arguments and tokens of the same, to wit, unto what shameful shifts you are forced to answer Scriptures brought by your Adversary in the behalf of Catholic doctrine.  

You deny the Text, and Context of Scripture. §. 1.  
FIRST, many times you are enforced by your adversary, when you cannot answer, to deny the ●ext & context of Scripture, whereof I allege two examples. The jesuit pag. 480. to prove, that Christ promised eternal life unto the worthy participant ●f the sacrament, under the form of bread, bringeth ●he words of our Saviour, john. 6. Qui manducat hunc ●anem, vivet in aeternum: he that eateth this bread shall ●ue for ever. You in the place quoted, answer, The scripture john 6.51. saith not, whosoever eateth sacramental bread without wine, shall live for ever; but if any ●●te this bread which came down from heaven, to wit, Christ ●●sus incarnate, shall live for ever. And then it followeth, ●nlesse you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink 〈◊〉 blood you shall not have life in you, john. 5.53. Thus 〈◊〉. Now mark unto what straits, maugre your ●●agging, you are brought by the jesuite. First you are not acknowledge these words cited by the jesuit, he that eateth this bread, liveth for ever, to be our ●●uiours, but only those, If any shall eat etc. Wher●● they be our Saviour's, & the express text of Scripture in so many words & syllables, john. 6.59. which ●●yth, He that eateth this bread, liveth for ever. Se●●ndly, you are compelled to answer, that Christ ●●ter he had said, he that eateth this bread liveth for ●●er, said, Unless you eat the flesh and drink the ●●oud of the son of man, you shall not have life in ●ou. By which ensuing sentence he did, as you think, ●eclare the former, If any eat this bread etc. that it must not be understood of Sacramental bread, without wine. This is against the context and order of the sentences of God's word; this sentence, He that eateth this bread shall live for ever, being five sentences or verses after this other, Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood. Yea these words, he that eateth this bread liveth for ever, are absolutely the very last, wherewith Christ shutteth up his discourse about Sacramental taking his flesh and blood. Wherefore not to be forced to grant, that Christ promised as much to the eating of Sacramental bread only, as to eating and drinking both, you are forced to deny the text, and context of God's word. If you say, our Saviour indeed spoke the words, He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever, but that he spoke not of Sacramental bread, nor of Sacramental eating; I reply: First, why then did you not acknowledge this text aswell as this other; If any eat this bread, he shall live for ever? Secondly you contradict yourself, for that the seaventh Chap. of S. john speaketh of Sacramental eating & drinking, yourself affirm many times in this Reply, as pag. 395. lin. 8. pag. 406. lin. 13. & pag. 466. lin. 20.  
A second example of your being forced to deny, or not to acknowledge the text of God's word, is found pag. 75. There the jesuit saith, that even in the days of Antichrist, the Church shall be visibly universal, referring himself for proof to the Apocalips 20. v. 8. You in lieu of the eight verse, cite the seaventh, Then shall Satan be let lose, & shall go forth, and seduce nations which are upon the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, & shall gather them into a battle, the number of whom shall be as the sands of the sea. Which text is impertinent. For it proveth that the army of Antichrist, shall be for multitude of men innumerable; Not the universal diffusion of the Christian Church in his reign. Why stopped you at the sea●enth verse? Why would you not proceed to set ●owne the words of the eight, that were under your ●yes, unto which the jesuits marginal quotation referred you? Verily you saw that they proved the jesuits intent so clearly, as you knew not what to re●ly. For the text saith 
(a) Apoc. 8.20.  of Antichrists Pursuivants, ●hey went over the breadth of the earth, and compassed a●out the camp of Saints, and thc beloved City. By which ●lace it is evident that the camp of Saints and the belo●ed City, to wit, the Church persecuted by Anti●hrist in his reign, shall be spread over the face of ●he earth.   

●ou are forced to go against Christ's express word. §. 2.  
THE jesuit pag. 409. argueth in this sort: If God can put a whole Camel in the eye of a needle, is he not ●ble to put the whole body of Christ in a consecrated Host? ●ut, God can put a Camel in a needle's eye, witness our Saviour Matth. 19 v. 24.25.26. where having said, It is ●ore easy for a Camel to pass through a needle's eye, then ●or a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of heaven: whē●is disciples did much wonder thereat, demanding who then can be saved? He answered, With men this 〈◊〉 impossible, but all things are possible unto God.  
Our Answer (say you, pag 412.) is, that these words ●ll things are possible to God, are referred to the latter ●art of Christ's speech, touching the rich man's entering into ●eauen, and not to the Camels passing through the needle's 〈◊〉. All things agreeable to truth, and which God will have done, are possible: but that it is agreeable to truth for a Camel, retaining his quantity, with the whole body to pass through a needle's eye, or that God will have this to be done, deserveth to be credited, when the Adversaries prove it by divine Revelation, or by other demonstration. Thus you forced by your adversary to deny the express word of God, as I demonstrate by three arguments.  
First, if our Saviour having named many things as difficile, hard, and impossible with men, conclude that not one of these things only, but all are possible with God; then to say, that one of the things only, & not all are possible to God, is directly to contradict our Saviour, & to give him the lie. Our Saviour having named many things as hard, difficile, and impossible unto men, to wit, that Camels pass through a needle's eye, and that rich men enter into the Kingdom of heaven, concludeth, that not one of these things only, but all are possible unto God, apud Deu● omnia possibilia sunt, 
(b) Matth. 19.16. Mar. 10.27.  all these hard, and difficile things are possible with God. Ergo, you in saying that one sort of these things by him named as hard & difficile, are impossible unto God, to wit, that Camels pass through a needle's eye, do directly contradict the words of our Saviour, & give him the lie.  
Secondly, to affirm that a Camels passage through the eye of a needle is impossible unto God, is more directly against this speech of our Saviour, then to say, that a rich man's entrance into heaven is impossible. This I prove. If our Saviour say, that of the two, the Camels passing through a needle's eye is more easy, that is less difficile, then to deny the Camels passing through a needle's eye to be possible unto God, is more directly against our Saviour's ●ord, then so to affirm of a rich man's entering into 〈◊〉 Kingdom of heaven. For if things more easy & ●●sse difficile be impossible, how much more things ●●sse easy and more difficile? If we may with truth affirm, that God cannot do what by the truth of his word we know to be more easy, much rather may we affirm, God cannot do what by the truth of his word we believe to be more difficile. This is clear. ●ut our Saviour saith most expressly, that it is more ea●y, that is less difficile for a Camel to pass through ● needles eye, then for a richman to enter into the Kingdom of heaven. Ergo, Your saying the pas●ing of a Camel through a needle's eye to be impossible unto God, is more against this place of his word, ●hen had you so affirmed of a rich man's entering in●o heaven.  
Thirdly, if this word of our Lord, All is possible unto God, be referred directly, properly, and special●y unto a Camels passing through a needle's eye, & not unto a rich man's entering into heaven, than you do directly oppose the truth of God's word: But that ●his speech, All is possible unto God, is in this manner ●eferred unto the Camels passing through a needle's eye, & not unto the rich man's entering into heaven, ●s evident by the drift of this place: For our Lord by this discourse, doth directly intent to show not a rich man's salvation to be possible, but the Apostles argument which moved them to despair of the salvation of rich-men, not to be good. They hearing our Saviour say, it is more easy for a Camel to pass through a needle's eye, then that a rich man enter in the Kingdom of heaven, supposing in their thought as most certain, that a Camels passing through a needle's eye, was altogether impossible, concluding, What richman then can be saved? Our Saviour answering unto the argument that so perplexed them saith, though these things be impossible with men, yet all is possible unto God. As if he had said: What you suppose in your thoughts as certain, that a Camel cannot pass through a needle's eye, is false; because God is omnipotent, and so though such things be impossible with men, yet all is possible unto him. Now your supposition being false, your argument that rich-men cannot be saved, is not solid. For from my words, it is more easy for a Camel etc. you can only enforce, that as the Camel cannot pass through a needle's eye, but by the ompotency of the divine hand; so the richman cannot be saved, but by the omnipotency of divine grace. Hence it is evident that our Saviour did directly intent to teach the possibility of a Camels passing through a needle's eye; so destroying the ground on which the Apostles did build their false persuasion, that rich men could not be saved. But this you avouch not to be possible unto God. Therefore you are forced by the jesuit to deny Gods express word, howsoever you brag, that the jesuits arguing from Scripture, is wondrous weak.   

You are forced to deny the Creed. §. 3.  
THE jesuite pag. 409. thus argueth: If the body of Christ being mortal and passable, could penetrate with the body of his blessed Mother, and come out of her womb, the same still remaining entire, as we confess in the Creed, Natum de MARIA Virgin; why then may not the same body being now glorious, & immortal, and (as the Apostle speaks) spiritual, penetrate the quantity of 〈◊〉 bread, and enclose itself wholly and entirely within the 〈◊〉 compass thereof?  
You answer pag. 411. The blessed Virgin in her ●RAVELL in puerperio, bore not Christ in a different ●anner from other women. Luc. 2.23. And what a Sophistical inference is this, the Creed hath, Borne of the Virgin MARY, meaning according to conception, and genera●●ons, and clearness from the company of man. Ergo, the ●ody of the blessed Virgin was not opened at the time of his ●yrth. Thus you: whose assertion that the Creed on●y saith, that according to conception, the blessed Vir●in was clear from the company of man, is open denial of a principal part thereof. For the Creed doth ●ot only say, our Lord was conceived by the Holy Ghost, which doth import his Mother's purity & cleernes from the company of man in his generation; but the ●urity of his conception being declared, the Creed adds, as a new point of faith, borne of the Virgin Mary, requiring that we believe she was a Virgin, that ●s, incorrupt and entire in her childbirth. So that ●our interpretation whereby you confound her virginity in generation, with her virginity in childbirth, which the Creed doth so exactly distinguish, is ●laine denial of the text of the creed. And your terming this our simple sincere belief of the words of ●he creed, a sophistical inferrence, is first ridiculous. ●or the believing of the text of God's word, as it ●●ands, cannot be termed an inference, much less a sophistical inference.  
Secondly, it is not only foolish, but also impious, being a reproach to the perpetual Faith of the whole Christian Church, as 
(d) Augustin. Enchyrid. cap. 34. De Virginenasci oportebat quem Matris fides non libido conceperat. Quòd si vel per nascentem corrumperetur eius integritas, non iam ille de virgine nasceretur, eumue falsò (quod absit) de Virgin Maria nat●̄ tota confitaretur Ecclesia.  S. Aug. doth testify. It was saith he) necessary, that he whom the faith, not the lust of his mother had conceived, should also be borne of a Virgin. For if the integrity of his mother had been broken in this being borne of her, than had he not been borne of a Virgin, and then (which God forbidden) false were the belief of the whole Church professing in the Creed, Natum de Maria Virgin, borne of the Virgin Mary. The same is taught by the rest of the Fathers, namely by S. 
(e) Ambros. Epist. 81. De via iniquitatis poduntur dicere, Virgo concepit, sed non Virgo generavit.  Ambrose, who terms it wicked & perverse to say, as you do, that in her generation, the blessed Mother was incorrupt and entire, not in her childbirth. She (saith S. Ambrose) that could conceive him being a Virgin incorrupt, could she not bring him forth remaining a Virgin incorrupt? If they will not believe the tradition of Priests, let them believe the oracles of the Prophets: 
(f) Non concepturam tantummodo Virginem, sed & parituram Virginem Propheta dixit.  A Virgin shall bring forth a Son: Let them believe the creed of the Apostles, which the Roman Church doth purely & inviolatly keep, to wit, which saith, not only conceived by the holy Ghost, but also borne of the virgin Mary,  
What you object out of S. Luke, vers. 23. Every Male-child that openeth the womb shall be holy unto our Lord, hath been answered long ago, and declared by the ancient Fathers. For the Scripture by the child opening the womb, understands the Child that comes first out of the womb, because that Child commonly doth, & by course of nature must, needs open the womb. Hence he is termed, the Child opening the womb, though it happen that he do not open the womb. As the fire of the Babylonian furnace may be termed a thing which consumeth what is cast into it, because commonly it doth so, and by course of nature it must needs do so, though there by divine Miracle the contrary did happen; which manner of speech is so vulgar, as it is by you used even in this place perchance without reflection. For you terming ●he Blessed Virgins bringing forth of our Lord, TRAVEL, I think you are not impiously persuaded with the jew, that she brought him forth with ●abour and pain as other women do; but you ●all her childbirth TRAVEL, because common●y and naturally the same is still joined with labour ●nd travel. In this sort (say the 
(g) Quod ait ad aperiens vuluam, consueto nativitatis more loquitur, non quod Dominus noster sacri ventris hospitium, quòd ingressus sanctificarat, egressus deuirginasse credendus sit iuxta HAERETICOS qui dicunt Beatam Mariam Virginem fuisse usque ad paritum; sed iuxta FIDEM Catholicam, clauso Virginis utero, quasi sponsus suo pocessit ex Thalamo. Ven. Beda in cap. 2. Luc.  Fathers) the Scripture saying of our Saviour, the male-child opening the womb, consueto nativitatis more loquitur, speaketh according to that which commonly doth happen in the birth ●f such children, not that we should think that our Lord in ●is going forth, did break the integrity of the Virgin's Closet, which by his entrance he had sanctified, as HERETICS ●each, that Blessed Mary was an entire Virgin only until ●er Childbirth; But according to the CATHOLIC FAITH he came forth of the Virgin's womb, the same still resting entire, and as a Bridegroom out of his Bride-Chamber. Now you may crow, and crack, & crown your Book, as you do in your Picture, when you are so pressed by your Adversary, that you are forced to defend your Error by holding ancient heresies, and by laying the term of Sophistical Inference upon the Catholic Faith of the Creed, and of the whole Christian Church.   

In answering Scriptures, you contradict yourself, and grant the jesuit the Question. §. 4.  
THE vanity of your former brag, that the jesuit hath proved nothing by Scripture, is further made apparent in that he doth so urge you with Scripture, as you are sometimes forced to contradict yourself, sometimes to grant as much as he doth require against yourself. The jesuit pag. 98. proveth that the Church of Christian pastors succeeding the Apostles, is infallible in her Tradition, because our Saviour saith, Matth. 28. Behold I am with you all days until the consummation of the world. You answer pag. 100 That which is promised upon condition is not absolute until the condition be fulfilled. The presence of Christ is promised to the Apostles successors conditionally, and as they were one with the Apostles by imitation & subordination: that is, so fare as they walked in their steps, & conformed their doctrine and ministry to the pattern received from them. Thus you in this place. But pag. 174. lin. 21. speaking of the absolute perpetuity and duration of the Church you say, that the place Matth. 28.20. Behold I am with you all days until the end of the world, proveth, that the Church is universal in respect of time, and that it continueth successively in all ages.  
This your saying overthrows what you said, that the presence of Christ is promised upon condition, wherein the successors of the Apostles might fail For this place, Behold I am with you all days until the world's end, doth show the Church to be always in the world; no other ways, then because Christ according to his promise, is always, and all days to the world's end with his Church, & he can not be still in the world with his Church, except his Church have still a being in the world. So that according to the truth of this place, we may aswell, or better say, the Church shall not be always in the world, then that it shall be in the world without Christ, or his Divine assistance to teach men infallibly the truth. Wherefore if by this place we cannot, as you say we cannot, prove, that the Church shall be ever absolutely assisted of Christ, much less doth this place convince that the Church shall be always in the world, or further then conditionally if it walk in ●he Apostles doctrine. Contrariwise, if this place ●roue, that the Church is absolutely always in the world until the consummation thereof, then à for●iori more strongly and more directly doth it prove ●hat Christ is absolutely, & not only conditionally present with his Church all days to the world's end: ●o that to answer the jesuits proofs of his Religion ●y Scripture, you contradict yourself, yea sometimes ●rant against yourself as much as he would prove.  
For to prove the same infallibility of the Church ●e bringeth pag. 3. the place of S. Paul, 
(g) 1. Tim. 3.15.  that the church is the ground & pillar of truth, but the ground of ●ertaine & infallible Truth, such as the Christian is, ●ust be certain & infallible. You answer pag. 4. lin. ●. If by the Church we understand the Church of Christ ●●uing af●er the Apostles, the same is by office and calling ●he pillar and ground of truth in all ages. This your answer alloweth unto the jesuit as much as he desires, 〈◊〉 can desire to show the Church to be always infallible. For that which is by office and divine vocation the ●●llar, and ground of infallible truth, hath by divine ordination and assistance sufficiency for the performance of that office, as is most evident. The Church ●hich is fallible & may err is not a sufficient pillar 〈◊〉 ground, that is, hath not sufficiency to be the ground 〈◊〉 Christian truth which is infallible. For how can 〈◊〉 building sure & immoveable stand, founded upon 〈◊〉 uncertain, ruinous, and tottering foundation? ●herfore seeing you grant the church succeeding the apostles to be in all ages the ground of truth by divine vocation unto that office, you do consequently allow unto the jesuit as much as he would prove, to wit, that the Church succeeding the Apostles, is i● all ages until the world's end certain, and infallible in her teaching.   

In lieu of answering, you confirm the jesuits Arguments. §. 5.  
THE jesuit pag. 38. accuseth Ministers of abusing the word of God, who to prove the sole sufficiency of Scripture in respect of all men, cite the text of S. Paul 2. Tim. 3.15. The Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation. For the words of the Apostle are directed particularly to Timothy, saying, they are able to make THEE wise unto salvation: whence it is consequent, that the Scriptures were sufficient for Timothy, and are sufficient for such men as Tymothy was, to wit, for men learned and aforehand instructed by word of mouth, and thereupon firmly believing all the most main and necessary points of Christian doctrine and discipline. That the Scriptures for men in this manner taught and grounded in faith, are abundantly sufficient, who will deny? Thus the jesuit. Unto whom you shape this answer pag. 39 Although sentences of holy Scripture are sometimes restrained to the personal and particular subject of which they are first spoken; yet this is not general, and when the same happeneth it must be proved by better arguments then by the bare Emphasis of a word. For God said 〈◊〉 josuah (a man qualifyed above the ordinary rank) I will not leave, nor forsake thee, josuah 1.5. Yet the promise employed in this text is general, and common to all 〈◊〉 persons, Hebr. 13.5. Thus you, confirming the Iesuit● ●olution in lieu of confuting thereof. For as the pro●ise, I will not leave thee, made particularly unto Io●ue in regard he was a just man, doth not agree unto ●ll men, but only unto such as joshua was, to wit, ●nto just men, and such as seek God as he did. So the ●ext of S. Paul, they are able to make THEE wise unto valuation, spoken particularly unto Timothy, in re●ard he was learned, judicious, aforehand instructed & grounded in Christian tradition, doth agree only to Timothy, and such men as Timothy was, to wit, men aforehand taught, and grounded in the ●ayth of tradition. On the other side, as the promise ●ade to joshua in regard he was a Just man, cannot ●e challenged of other men, that be not just as he was, & if they rely thereon they deceive themselves; ●o the promise, the Scriptures are able to make THEE ●ise unto salvation, made unto Timothy in regard he was aforehand taught and grounded in the faith of Tradition, cannot be challenged of them that are ●f a differrent stamp from Timothy, to wit, men ●hat were never taught the faith of Tradition, or ●lse so ungrounded therein, as upon a seeming evidence of Scripture they be ready to change their f●rst ●eceiued faith. Hence it is manifest, that the jesuit ●ad reason to say, Ministers abuse God's word when ●hey cite it, the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto valuation, making that common to all men, which was spoken only to Timothy, and unto such as he was.  
Will you have another example of the same kind? The jesuit saith, the words of Christ, Do this in remembrance of me, was spoken of the Sacrament, in the form of bread, not under the form of wine. For our Saviour speaking of the Sacrament under the form of 〈◊〉 saith 
(h) 1. Cor. 11.  not absolutely, do this, as he did of bread, 〈◊〉 conditionally, do this as often as you drink in memor●● of me, that the Adversary of the Church might not have 〈◊〉 much as a plausible show to condemn cōmun●o in one kind 〈◊〉 against God's word. You after much bitter railing, calling the jesuit infatuated Romanist, & vermin, for 〈◊〉 urging you beyond your learning, answer thus 〈◊〉 the end. Touching the fancy of this objection, I further say, that even as when S. Paul said 1. Cor. 10.31. whethe● ye eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God; If these word● should be resolved 〈◊〉 this manner: As often as ye eat or drink, or do any thing else, do all to the glory of God, the placing 〈◊〉 this word, as often, restraineth not the speech from being a precept: so likewise when S. Paul saith: As often as ye● drink, do this in remembrance of me, this manne● altereth not his words from being a commandment. Thus you, confirming the jesuits answer. For no example could have been devised, or imagined more fit to show, that Christ's words, as often as you drink import not an absolute, but only a conditional precept▪ Which thus I demonstrate. You grant that the words of Christ, Do this as often as you drink in remembrance of me, be preceptive in the same manner, as, & no more than these of S. Paul, as often as ye eat or drink, or walk abroad, or do any thing else, do all to the glory of God. But no man that hath his right senses will say, that this speech doth absolutely command Christians to eat, or drink, or sleep, or ride, or walk, or to do any of the like actions of human life, but only doth conditionally command, or direct men, that when they will eat or drink, or sleep, or ●●de, or walk, that they do all to God's glory. Ergo, 〈◊〉 words of Christ, saying, do this as often as ye drink 〈◊〉 remembrance of me, do not imply an absolute precept of ●●●nking of the cup, but only a conditional direction, that ●●en men drink, they do that Sacramental action in ●emory of his Passion. So that in lieu of soluing the 〈◊〉 of the jesuits argument, you entangle yourself, 〈◊〉 tie the same more fast.   

You send the jesuite to God for an Answer. §. 6.  
THE jesuit 
(i) See the Reply pag. 256.  chargeth the Protestant doctrine, that holy Images may be lawfully made, & not lawfully honoured, to be destitute of all show of Scripture. For the 
(k) Exod. 20.4.5.6. Deuter. 5.6.7.  text of the Law is no less clear against the making of such Images, then against their ●eing adored, Thou shalt not make to thyself any image, ●●ou shalt not worship nor adore them. Hence he argueth, ●he images which by this precept we are forbidden 〈◊〉 adore, be such as by the same we are forbidden to ●ake: But the Images of Christ be not such Images 〈◊〉 we are forbidden by this precept to make: Ergo, ●●ey are not the Images we are forbidden by this precept to adore. And whereas Protestants expound 〈◊〉 first part of the precept, Thou shalt not make ●●em, to wit, with purpose and intention to adore▪ ●his exposition (saith the jesuit) is not only violent ●●ainst the text, but also incongruous against sense. For 〈◊〉 
(l) Some may object that God doth forbid Adultery in the 6. Commandment Non ●oechaberis, and yet in the ninth he forbids by special commandment, the purpose and intention of adultery, Non concupis●es uxorem proximi tui. I Answer, that the ninth Precept doth not forbid the doing of ●●●nges with purpose and intention of Adultery (for this was sufficiently forbidden in the six● precept,) but this supposed, forbiddeth inward desires & lusts 〈◊〉 Adultery, though without doing any thing with purpose and intention there●●● And so our Saviour's Precept Matth. 5.28. Not to look upon a woman to lust 〈◊〉 her, supposeth the doing of things with intention of Adultery to be unlawful, and forbiddeth the looking upon a woman with lustful delight, & desire, 〈◊〉 without intention of doing the act of Adultery.  prohibition of things, doth likewise forbid the doing things with intention to do against the Prece●● Hence I argue. The Precept, thou shalt not adore Images, doth forbid the making of them with intention to adore, as much as the precept, Thou shalt not kill▪ doth forbid the making of weapons with intention to kill. But the precept, thou shalt not kill, doth so fully and sufficiently forbid the doing of any thing with intention of murder, that it had been superfluous to have set down that precept in this form, Thou shalt not make, or wear weapons with intention to kill, thou shalt not kill. Therefore without sense we●● the precept, Thou shalt not make any Images, Tho● shalt not adore them, had the first part no more sens● than you give it, to wit, Thou shalt not make Ima●ges with intention to adore.  
Besides, as to make an image to adore, is Idolatry, 〈◊〉 to take it in hand, to look on it to that purpose; wh●● them was not such looking on, or taking in hand wit● purpose of adoration forbidden aswell as making? 〈◊〉 if looking on them with intention to adore them is 〈◊〉 clearly forbidden in the precept, Thou shalt not adoor them, as there needed not further expression; wh●● need was there, or reason that making of images with intention to adore, should be more largely or fully expressed? You answer: As for the jesuites interrog●●tions, Why then? What need was there? we refe●● him to the Lawgiver to challenge or demand reasons of him▪ And as for ourselves we rest upon the revealed will of God not daring to question, or demand reason of his action●▪ Thus you. Whereby it is manifest that you grant th● jesuites arguments against your exposition of Scripture to be so clear, as you cannot answer them, 〈◊〉 must send him to God to ask an answer of hi● ●ndeed if, Thou shalt not make to thyself any images with ●●tention to adore them, thou shalt not adore them, were ●he text, and very letter of God's word, you might ●ith less shame have confessed your ignorance, that ●ou can say nothing in defence of the text. In which ●ase, the jesuit (I presume) would willingly have ●ad recourse unto God by prayer, entreating him ●o enlighten his understanding with some sufficient ●eason, & would have hoped to have obtained his ●uite. If not, yet would he have believed God's word ●o have had some congruous sense, though he saw ●ot the same, this being reverence due to the word ●f Supreme Verity.  
But now this saying, Thou shalt not make any Images, with purpose to adore them, is not the text of God's word, but a Minister's addition unto his word, pre●ended by way of exposition. Hence the jesuits arguments, for which you send him unto God to have ●hem answered, tend not against the text of God's word, but against a Minister's explication thereof. This being so, why should the jesuit finding your interpretation to be sottish, and senseless to his see●ing, go unto God, and not unto you for a solution of his questions against it? What Law bindeth ●im to adore your additions to God's word, as divine Oracles, such as he must believe, though he cannot comprehend? Why should he go unto God, & pray ●im to unfold the high misteryes of your Ministerial wisdom, which you confess you do not understand yourself? Why may he not without more a●oe, think your doctrine to be incomprehensible through want of reason, as are the fooleries of fan●y, not through height of wisdom, as the misteryes of faith? Show (I say) some reason that obligeth jesuits to accept of your interpretations of Scripture, which they can prove to be sottish and senseless, so clearly, as you cannot answer▪ or else confess that the jesuit by conference of texts, by consideration of Antecedents & Consequents, by the drift of the place▪ hath so convinced your exposition of falsehood, as you have not a word to reply in good sense, but to be rid of his urging, you send him unto God for an Answer.   

Your innumerable gross Impertinencyes in cyphering, and scoring of Scriptures. §. 7.  
YOU have a manner of arguing proper to yourself, at lest which I find by none of your rank more frequently used, then by yourself. This is to set down a conceit of your own words, suiting with your own humour, and then to score Books, chapters, and verses of Scripture on heaps, without relating the words, as if your conceit were in those places recorded in so many syllables. And because in this kind of cyphering, consists the strength of your whole book, I will by some store of examples decipher the gross vanity thereof, and consequently of your whole Book.  
First, you often cite texts and chapters of Scripture that are not, so making yourself like unto God qui vocat ea, quae non sunt. Pag. 10. lin. 24. to prove that Protestants acknowledge the lawful authority of the Church, you cite 2. Thessaly. cap. 5. Whereas the second to the Thessalonians, hath only three chapters. Pag. 106. lin. 17. to prove that Christians may departed from the Christian Church, whereof they are members, without joining unto any other Christi●n Church, you cite Host 10.17. whereas that chapter ●●th only 15. verses, & not one to the purpose you breage it. Pag. 45. lin. 17. for this your saying, the Scripture is the seed of faith you cite john. 20.41. whereas that ●wentith chapter hath verses only thirty one, & not ●ne of them hath this sentence, The Scripture is the used of Faith. Had you cited the words, though you ●ad erred in the book, chapter, or verse, we might ●aue helped your mistaking, now God only know●th the texts you intended.  
Secondly, the places you cipher, not only do ●ot contain the sayings, for which you cipher ●hem expressly, and in so many words; but also ●hey are commonly so infinitely impertinent, and so far from the matter you intent to prove, as being ●ited and applied to your purpose, they are most ridiculous. Pag. 224. lin. 26. to prove that you Ministers ●aue such Union with God, as Religious Adoration ●s due unto you, you cipher Act. 10.34. which ●ayth, Then Peter opened his mouth, and said of a truth, I perceive that God hath no respect of persons. Pag. 30. lin. ●5. to prove Scripture is the voice of God, you cipher Luc. 1.7. which saith, Salvation from our enemies, and from the hands of all them that hate us. Pag. 105. lin. 13. to prove that right Faith may be preserved in persons living in a corrupt visible Church, as Wheat among Tares, you cipher 1. King. 19.11. And he said, go forth and stand upon the mountain before the Lord, and behold the Lord passed by. Pag. 106. lin. 16. to prove that Christians may separate from all Christian Churches, and begin a new Christian Church of themselves, you cipher 2. Cor. 6.14. which saith, Be not yoked together in marriage with Infidels. Pag. 223. lin. 4. to prove that in adoration, Christ & his Image have no agreement, you cipher 2. Cor. 6.16. which saith, What agreement between the Temple of God and Idols? Pag. 30. lin. 23. to prove that the Scripture is a divine light showing itself to be heavenly, you cipher 2. Cor 4.6. God hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ jesus.  
Pag. 558. lin. 3. to prove that living Saints have not Communion with the Saints defunct, by partaking their superabundant satisfactions, you cipher Ephes. 4.15. But speaking the truth in love, you may grow up to him in all things, who is the head, even Christ. To the same intent in the same place you cipher 1. john. 1.3. That which we have seen and heard, we declare unto you, that you may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Christ jesus. Pag. 546. lin. 1. to prove that the reward of works may be given of free bounty, and not of debt, you cite Psalm. 127. v. 2. It is vain for you to rise up early, or to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrow, for so he giveth his beloved sleep. Also to the same purpose, you cipher Ezech. 29. v. 18. Every head was bald, and every shoulder was pealed, yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus. Pag. 551. lin. vlt. to prove that the B. Virgin said the Lords Prayer, or Pater Noster, whereof one petition is, Forgive us our trespasses, you cite Act. 1.14. They continued in prayer and supplication together with the women, and Mary the Mother of jesus. Which text proveth the Virgin prayed; but that her prayer was vocal, and not pure mental, and if vocal, that she said Pater Noster, rather than Magnificat, or Benedictus, or some of the psalms of David, who that is sober, would undertake by this text to conclude?  
Pag. 43. lin. 2. to prove that the Scripture is sufficient in genere regulae for Ministers, you cipher 1. Tim. 6.12. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art called. Ibid. lin. 3. to prove ●he Scripture to be sufficient for spiritual men, you ●ypher 1. Cor. 2.15. But he that is spiritual, judgeth all things, and is judged of none, which proveth the contrary (if it prove any thing) to wit, that the spiritual Man is not judged and ruled by Scripture, but ra●her the Scripture is judged and ruled by him. Pag. ●0. lin. 21. to prove that we wrong you, in saying ●ou derogate from the Church, you cite Matth. 18. ●7. He that heareth not the Church, let him be as a Heathen & publican. Ibid. to the same purpose you cipher Heb. ●●. 17. Obey your Prelates, and submit yourself unto them. ●ag. 169. lin. 22. to prove that no Church ever pri●●d the oblation & merits of Christ's passion more ●●ghly and religiously than you do, you cipher Heb. ●. 14. With one oblation he did consummate for ever the sanctifyed: and Ephes. 5.2. He gave himself a sacrifice 〈◊〉 us, to a sweet smelling savour: & john. 1.29. Behold the ●ambe of God that taketh away the sins of the world: & ●ct. 4.12. There is not Salvation in any other Name. Pag. ●1. lin. 1. to prove we wrong you by saying, you a●●int that 
(m) The words of john White way pag. 126.  EVERY particular MAN examine & ●●dge of the Church & her teaching, you cite 1. Cor. ●. 19. Are all Apostles? Are all Prophets? Are all teachers? ●re all workers of miracles? If one would study to ap●●y Scriptures impertinently, I am persuaded he could ●●rdly device greater impertinencyes than these, ●hich are so ri●e in every page of your book; so that it was intolerable folly for your Poet and Paynter, to represent this your Voluminous cyphering of Scripture, with a crown upon it, bidding men to Beh●●● grace and wisdom in your look, and Truths Triumph●●● your book. For if this kind of cyphering of Scripture be Wisdom, what I pray you, is the last Extreme an● Nonplus of 
(*) I wonder you would not be warned to be more wise, by the Book of Quaeres, or Prurit-anus. For you cite the Scriptures as impertinently in good earnest, as he did in jest to show your Ministerial Folly.  Folly?   

You cite & cipher Scriptures that make against you. §. 8.  
HEREUNTO I add, that the texts you cypher many times make against you. Pag. 548. lin. 19 to prove that reward is given unto works of Gra●● and bounty, aswell as of Desert, you cipher Rom. 4▪ 4. which saith, to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt. Can any text be device more directly against the purpose you cite it? For by this place, joined with a sentence of yours, I conclude unanswerably our Catholic doctrine of Merit. The reward which is given to him that worketh in regard of the Goodness and Righteousness of his work, is given not of grace, but of debt. But Eternal life is termed a Crown of glory, because it is bestowed 〈◊〉 them which exercise Righteousness, and in regard of th● righteousness, the true inherent dignity, sanctity, and purity of their works. Ergo, Eternal life is a reward o● good works given to God's children of debt, not 〈◊〉 mere grace and bounty. The Mayor is S. Paul's by you cyphered in this place; the Minor your own● in so many words pag. 174. in fine. and 1●9. so th●● the text of Scripture by you cited, proveth inuinci●bly the doctrine of Merit, against which you cite i● Pag. 558. lin. 4. to prove that living Saints have no communion with Saints defunct, by partaking the superabundant satisfaction, you city Rom. 12. v. 4. We have many members in one body, and every member hath ●ot the same office. This text proveth the contrary to ●hat you intent, to wit, that Satisfactions are communicable betwixt Saints: for from this text I argue thus. If Saints living & Saints deceased be members of the same body, having different offices, than ●here must be betwixt them communion in all things which superabound in some members, and are nee●ed of other; for this we see to be that fellowship which by the institution of nature, the members of ●he same body ought to enjoy the one with the o●her. But the Myrrh of mortifications and satisfactions superabound in many most rare, innocent and penitent Saints in heaven, and is no less needed of diverse other Saints upon the earth, that have done many sins, and cannot do such great penance. Therefore, the Myrrh of superabounding Penance and Satisfaction, aught to flow down from deceased Saints in heaven, unto their fellow-members the needy Saints that live on earth.  
The jesuite 
(n) See the Reply pag. 523.  saith, that the first Precept Thou shalt love thy Lord God with all thy hart etc. bindeth not man to love God in this life with Beatifical love, nor to be always in actual employment of his love on him; but only to love sincerely and inwardly, to the keeping of all commandments, without any mortal offence, which breaketh friendship with God, desiring, though not enjoying, the happiness of beatifical love. This, he saith, is the meaning of S. Bernard, and S. Augustine, when they say the perfection of the next life is contained in this precept, to wit, in voto, not in re. This doctrine you impugn pag. 525. lin. 26. saying, That the Saints of God having observed other commandments, broke the first commandment, and did undergo corporal pain after the breach thereof. How prove you this? marry you cipher Heb. 11.31. They were stoned, they were sawen a sunder, they were slain with the sword. Doth this text prove the Saints transgressed the first Commandment? That they were corporally afflicted for their not loving God with all their hart? Doth it not rather show the contrary, that they loved God perfectly, and were temporally tormented, because they so loved him with all their hart, that they would rather undergo most cruel and barbarous deaths, then offend him, or abandon the truth of his word, which is, as our Saviour saith, the highest degree of Charity?  
Pag. 10. lin. 20. You deny the Church to be infallible in her Traditions and Definitions; yet (say you) we acknowledge her lawful authority for expounding Scripture and maintaining unity in right faith. In proof hereof you cite Matth. 18.17. Who so heareth not the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican. You could not have invented a text that doth more invincibly show the contrary of what you intent. Let us make this text of Scripture the Mayor, and your Protestant doctrine the Minor, and put your Argument in form, then will you see how handsomely you prove, that you acknowledge all the lawful authority of the Church. The Scripture saith, The Church is of so great, & absolute, & infallible authority, that whosoever doth not hear her, is to be held as an Heathen and a Publican. Protestants say, the Church is so subject to error, and so fallible that every particular man of the people, for fear of being deceived, 
(o) john white way pag. 116.  must examine her teaching, yea yourself affirm, 
(p) Reply pag. 136. lin. 20. etc.  that not whosoever contradicteth the whole Church, is to be held as an Heathen and Publican, but only such as oppose the whole Church rashly, without cause, or inordinately. Ergo, Protestants acknowledge the authority given to the Church by the word of God, and consequently her lawful authority.  
Pag. 169. The jesuit doth charge you to extenuate the value of our Lord's passion, in saying that the same doth not purchase, and merit true inward purity, and sanctity to men's souls and actions. Against this, you say, 
(q) Reply pag. 169. lin. 20.  No Christian Church ever prized the oblation and merits more highly and religiously than we. Great praise or rather pride; even the Church of the Apostles were not more religiously devout unto, nor more highly conceited of Christ jesus, & his passion, than you are. Well, how prove you it? Heb. 10.14. it is written with one oblation he did consummate his sanctified for ever. john. 1.29. Behold the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world. This is even just, as if an Arian should argue in this sort: It is written john. 10.30. I, and and my Father are one. Ergo, Never Christian Church prized the divinity of Christ, nor thought more highly, or religiously of his Equality with his Father, than we. Would not this argument (should an Arian use it) prove him to be more ridiculous, then religious? And the same force, hath this your argument, as will appear if we put together into form the propositions thereof, the one Scriptures, the other your Assertion. It is written, that Christ is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, who by his one oblation on the Cross did consummate the sanctified for ever. Protestants 
(r) Caluin. Antidote Trident. in sess. 5 Permane● verè peccatum in nobis, neque per Baptismum uno die extinguitur. & lib. 3. Institut. c. 14. §. 9 Nullum à sanctis exire potest opus, quod non mereatur iustam opprobrij mercedem.  say, that Christ taketh not away the sins of the world▪ but that the same doth truly and properly remain in justified persons, and is only hidden and not imputed; yea yourself affirm pag. 170. and 171. That sin is still adjacent unto all the virtuous actions of just men, and that this imperfection & sinfulness is only covered by Christ his merits and purity, that it be not imputed: Ergo, Protestants prise the value of Christ's passion, for the effectual and perfect sanctification, cleansing and consummation of saints, and their actions, as highly and religiously, as ever did any Christian Church.   

Scriptures abused, and falsifyed. §. 9  
I Will conclude this section with some few Examples of fraud and falsehood in your citing of Scriptures, where you help the dice by addition or subtraction of some particle, or word, to make the Scripture found on your side: Although I do not doubt, but your scoring up in cyphers of so many impertinent Texts, though being discovered it be ridiculous, was also not without fraud by you used; that you might make show of Scriptures for such articles of your doctrine, for which you know in conscience, that no true proof from Scripture can be produced.  
The text, john 5.39. abused, Search the Scriptures.  
To begin with the Scriptures themselves, & with a falsehood more than once repeated in your Book; you would show that the sacred Scripture is so easy, as Unlearned people may understand the sense thereof, without relying on the Church's Tradition, & Exposition. To this purpose you say Pag. 9 lin. 9 Our Saviour commanded even simple people to use the Scripture. joan. 5.39. One would according to this your citation think, that the sacred Text did expressly say, that Search the Scriptures, was spoken unto simple people: And yet this is a fancy by you cunningly foisted into the text, against the plain evidence thereof, which showeth that, Search the Scriptures, was said not to the simple people, but to the Church-magistracy of the jews, as these three arguments evince.  
First the word jews, in the Gospel of S. john doth signify the Magistracy of the jews, excluding the simple people: This might be proved by forty examples, but this may suffice john. 7.13. 
joan. 1.9. & 2.18.20. & 5.15.16.18. & 7.1.11.35. & 8.22.48. & 9.18.22.  There was much muttering about him (our Saviour) amongst the common people, yet none durst speak openly of him, for fear of the jews. Behold the jews opposed & condistinguished against common people, & feared of them, whereby it is manifest, that by the jews, the Gospel of S. john doth understand the Magistracy of the jews. But certain it is, that our Saviour said, search the Scriptures, to the jews, according to the signification of that word in the Gospel of S. john: Dixit jesus Iudaeis, Scrutamini Scripturas etc. 
john. 5.32.  Therefore the words were said to the Magistracy of the jews, the common people being excluded.  
Secondly, our Saviour doth testify, that he said search the Scriptures unto them, that sent the Embassage unto john, to know what he was, 
john. 5.34.  vos misistis ad joannem. But clear it is that the authors of this Embassage were not the simple people, but the Church-magistracy of the jews. Ergo, Not unto simple people, but unto Churchmen, and Church-magistrates did our Saviour say, search the Scriptures.  
Thirdly, our Saviour said search the Scriptures unto men highly persuaded of the sole-sufficiency of the Scripture, thinking in them to have eternal life. This appeareth by the text, 
Ibid. vers. 33. Testimonium per●ibuit veritati▪ Ibid. vers. 36. opera quae facio testimonium perhibent. Ibid. vers. 37. Pater qui misit me testimonium perhibuit mihi.  search the Scriptures, because in them you think to have eternal life. Hence they would not believe in our Saviour, neither upon the testimony of john; nor upon the testimony of his works and miracles, nor upon the testimony of his Father's voice from heaven. Now, that the simple people were thus conceited of Scriptures, against the miracles of our Saviour, we have no ground to think; whereas that the Church-magistracy of the jews, was thus conceited, the Gospel doth expressly declare. There we read how they appealed from his miracles to Moses his books, bidding such as were lead away by his works, 
joan. 7. 52.5●. Scrutare Scripturas, & vide quia à Galilaea Propheta non surgit.  to search the Scriptures, & see that our Saviour could not be the Prophet. Therefore to these men, standing upon the testimony of Scripture, & sole-sufficiency thereof unto eternal life, & not to simple People, did our Saviour say, Search the Scriptures, because in them you think that you have eternal life, without me, whereas even these give testimony of me.  
Hence appeareth another falsification of this place, by cogging in your own conceit as it were, the very Text, to wit, that our Saviour by these words gave a command to use scriptures. For it is clear he did not by way of command say to the jews search the Scriptures, but by way of permission, in respect of their obstinacy, whereby they would not without Scripture believe in him, upon other most sufficient divine testimonies. So that search the Scriptures, because in them you think to have eternal life, hath this sense: Seing you will not be won to believe upon the testimony of john, nor, of my miracles, nor, of my Father's voice from heaven, but appeal from these testimonies unto Scriptures, thinking that in them you have eternal life, search the Scriptures in God's name, I am content; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do not superficially look upon them but search deeply into them, for being thus searched into, they yield testimony unto me.  
Certainly, if our Saviour had been of the Protestants mind, and would have given the precept they pretend▪ he would not have said to the jews, search the Scriptures, because in them you think that you have eternal life, but, search the scriptures, because in them only eternal life is to be had, or, because nothing necessary unto eternal life is to be believed until it be clearly proved by them. This he doth not say, but rather rebuketh the jews for this their Ministerial conceit, that nothing is to be believed upon any other testimony without Scripture. He did not therefore command them to use the Scriptures, but seeing them obstinately addicted unto only Scripture, he permitted them to proceed in their own way: Even as when Protestant's cannot be won to believe neither the testimony of john, that is, the consent of Fathers, nor the testimony of Christ's works, that is, of miracles done daily in his Church, nor the Father's lively voice from heaven, that is, God's word unwritten; we at last say unto them, Search the Scriptures, for even they give testimony unto the Catholic doctrine.  
Hence two things appear. First that your two assertions that Christ saying search the Scriptures, did command, and command even simple people to use Scriptures, be two fancies of your own, foisted into the Scripture not by way of interpretation, but by way of Historical Relation of the sacred text, which is gross abuse thereof. Secondly, that if we search deeply into this text, Search the Scriptures, the same doth clearly condemn the Protestant fancy, that only Scripture is the rule of faith, and shows this to have been the ground and principle of jewish Infidelity.  
The text Matth. 24.24 That even the elect be deceived, were it possible, grossly applied.,  
THUS you writ pag. 586. Although the Tradition, and teaching of the Church be fallible, yet unlearned people where they enjoy the free use of Scripture, as in ancient times all people did; and if they be careful of their salvation, and desire to know the truth, God blesseth his own Ordinance, and ordinarily assisteth them by grace, in such sort as they shall not be seduced to damnation. Math. 24.24. Thus you encourage simple people to be proud and obstinate in their private fancies, against the teaching and tradition of the Church: For in this speech you assure them, that reading their vulgar Bible, if they be careful of their salvation, and desire to know the truth, though they will not regard the Church, as the pillar, ground, and infallible Mistress of truth; yet God will so bless and assist them, as they shall not be seduced into damnable error. Now what is the bane of Christianity, but this false and proud persuasion inserted into the heads of Sots? Trinitarians, Anabaptists, Arians, Brownists, Familians, do they not desire to know the truth, who to that end so studiously peruse their Bible? Be they not careful of their Salvation that go so readily to the fire, rather than abandon the doctrine which by their skill in the Vulgar Bible, they judge to be the saving Truth? In these Wretches you may see, how in men desirous to know the truth God blesseth the ordinance of reading the vulgar Bible, without regard had to the Church, as an infallible Mistress.  
And as your doctrine is the seed & springe of heresy, so is the text of Scripture Matth. 24.24. most violently drawn to confirm it. For what saith the text? They (the false Prophets) shall do great signs & wonders, that even the elect be induced into error, if it be possible. By which text it is clear that the elect people of God, cannot be finally entrapped in damnable error. This is understood (as Divines speak) in sensu composito, that is, they cannot be deceived, because God ordains and foresees that they shall use the means to know saving Truth; which means is to cleave unto the Tradition of the Church, not trusting their own skill. Now then with what engines can you, from this truth, wrist your Paradox that men desirous of the truth, reading the vulgar Bible, cannot be damned? Are all men desirous of the truth that read the Bible, God's elect? If Heretics dispute in this manner: The Elect cannot be seduced unto damnation. Ergo, If they presume on their skill in the Bible not respecting the Church's doctrine as infallible, they shall not be seduced unto damnation. Why may not murderers argue in like sort? The elect cannot be damned, Therefore if they commit murder every day, and so persever until the end, they cannot be damned. This argument is as good as yours. For the contemners of the Church can no more be saved than murderers, if our Saviour say true, who so heareth not the Church, let him to thee as a Heathen and Publican.  
The text, Act. 17.11. about the Beroeans, abused.  
TO the same purpose of encouraging simple People to follow their fancies, gotten by reading their vulgar Bible you say pag. ●87. Unlearned people by comparing the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture, may certainly know whether it erreth, or not. Act. 17.11. Thus you. What saith the text that thence you may make such deductions? These were more Noble than those of Thessalonica, who received the word with all readiness of mind, searching daily whether these things were so. Now behold your manifold abuse of this sacred Narration.  
First, the text doth not say, these Beroeans were unlearned; how then can you hence conclude any thing for the ability of unlearned people to search the Scriptures? Again, the Text doth not say, that by comparing the doctrine of Paul with Scripture, they came to know certainly, that the doctrine of Paul was true; but only that believing his doctrine, they searched the Scriptures about the same, without mention of the success of their search. And if they were resolved by Scripture, this was only in one point, to wit, whether jesus were the Messiah, about which the Scriptures are clear and express. How then can you hence prove that unlearned people may know certainly whether the doctrine of the Church be true, by comparing the same with Scripture, in so many main articles of Controversy about Faith, whereof some (as you 
(a) pag. 106.  confess) are only implicately contained in the Scripture, and must by the rules of Logic and Deduction, be thence wrung out.  
Finally, the Beroeans read the Scriptures, only for their greater cofirmation in Faith, in case they should find by their private reading, the doctrine of S. Paul to agree with the Scripture. They read not by way of doubtful examination, that is, with purpose not to believe S. Paul, if so they should not find the Scriptures to yield plain testimony unto his doctrine. That they read not in this manner, is clear. For the Scripture saith, that before they searched the Scripture, they received the word with all alacrity, and readiness of mind: But if they had been doubtful of S. Paul's doctrine & had (to clear that doubt) gone to search the Scriptures, it could not have been truly said of them, that they received the word with alacrity, and all readiness of mind, and afterward searched the Scriptures. Therefore they did not search Scriptures by way of doubtful examination, but with full resolution, to believe S. Paul's doctrine, even in case they should not find by their private industry, the same clearly delivered in the Scripture. How then may you by this example make good your Protestant doctrine, that Unlearned People may compare the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture, in doubting manner, that is, with intention not to believe the Church in case they should not be able to discover her doctrine by private reading in their vulgar Bible? Or, in case, that in the seeming of their private judgement, the Scripture should appear as opposite unto the Church?  
The Text, 1. john. 1.8. If we say we have no sin etc. falsifyed.  
WHEREAS the jesuit (pag▪ 550.) saith out of S. Ambrose and S. Augustine, that the Blessed Virgin never committed actual sin; you (pag. 551.) reply, It is a manifest untruth. For S. john speaking in the person of all the Elect, saith, 1. john. 1.8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and there is no truth in us. And vers. 10. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. And pag. 517. much more bitterly thus you writ to this purpose. If our adversaries will be so graceless, as to make any man in this life (except the Holiest of the Holyes 1. Petr. 2.22.) free from sin, the Apostle enroleth him in the black book of damnable liars 1. john. 1.10. And they may with Acesius the Novatian borrow a ladder, and so climb up alone to heaven, yea rather fall to Hell; for who are more desperately sick quàm qui mentem febribus perdiderunt, than they which by the fever of pride, have lost the understanding of their sinful condition? Thus you: which you cannot deny to be bitter in excess. What is the jesuits fault? No other but this: he saith, that not only Christ jesus, the holiest of the holyes, was by nature, & Hypostatical Union impeccable, but also, 
(*) Concil. Trident. sess 6. can. 23. Sicut de Maria Virgin tenet Ecclesia.  that his Holy Mother was pure from all actual sin, by special grace.  
And why is this so great and damnable an offence? Marry; because S. john saith, If we say we have not sinned, we make God a liar, and this he spoke not in the person of only ordinary Saints, but in the person of all the Elect, even of Saints as singularly chosen as the Blessed Virgin. This is the ground of your bitterness. But first, though the Scripture had said, that all the elect commit actual sin, yet perchance not without warrant we might except the mother of God; but I will not stand herein against you. Show in God's word this text, all the elect have sinned, or this: S. john said in the person of all the elect, If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, & the jesuit presently yields. What can you wish more? But if, in the person of all the Elect, be as in truth it is, your addition unto the text, joined therewith so cunningly as it may seem the very letter of God's word, what may we think of you, but only that your railing against us, is not so bitter, but your injury unto God's word is greater.  
I add, that to say S. john spoke the aforesaid words in the person of all the Elect, not only is not the text, but also against the text, except we will make S. john excessive in the conceit of himself. For thus I argue. It is manifest, S. john spoke the words aforesaid in the person of such Saints, in the number of which he ranketh himself, If WE say that WE have no sin. But S. john could not without pride rank himself in the number of Saints as singularly chosen as was the glorious Virgin, so that if the sense of his saying be, If we, that is, Saints as singularly privileged as God's Blessed mother, say we have not sinned, we deceive ourselves, what can be more arrogant? Luther 
(a) Luther Serm. de Nativit. Mariae. Sumus pares Matri Dei, ac aequè Sancti sicut illa.  indeed hath left behind him written: We are all as holy as the Virgin Mary; but that S. john ever said it, or thought it, the Minister will never an able to prove. So that without any question (as also the 
(b) S. Augustin de nat. & great. c. 42. & & 60. & Epist. 95.  Father's note) S. john spoke in the person only of all common holy Christians, among whom he might without pride number himself.  
As for your reproaches so many & so bitter, for two reasons you are to be pitied: first, for that your passion against the jesuit, is either so blind as you see not what lieth before you, or so fierce as not to spare him, you let contumelious terms fly, that must light on the head of the holy Fathers. For this is your censure. They that hold any (except the Holiest of the Holyes,) to have been free from actual sin, are graceless, & are by S. john enroled in the black book of damnable liars; mentem febribus perdiderunt, they have lost their wits by the frenzy of pride. Now, under this your Censure I subsume a known and undeniable truth: But holy Fathers exempt the Blessed Virgin from actual sin, not only S. 
(c) Serm. 2. de Assumpt.  Bernard, S. 
(d) De excel. B. Virg. c. 3.  Anselme, but also S. 
(e) Epist. ad Epict.  Athanasius, S. 
(f) In cap. 1. Reg.  Gregory, S. 
(g) Ser. 22. in Psal. 118.  Ambrose, yea S. Augustine, 
(h) de Nat. & Grat. c. 36.  who thus speaketh for them all: In matter of sin, no mention is to be made of the mother of our Lord, she is not included in the general sentences of that kind: Scimus enim etc. For we KNOW, WE ARE CERTAIN, that unto her, singular Grace was given to conquer sin every way. What is hence consequent? That except you recall your Censure, you must censure the Fathers, as Graceless, Damnable liars, Frantic fools, so great is your passion, and so small your judgement in railing at the jesuit.  
Secondly, you are to be pitied, in regard your passion is so extreme, as you cannot join together the parts of your discourse in any sensible manner. You say, that the jesuit holding the Blessed Virgin was immaculate, and pure from actual sin, is like to Acesius the Novatian, who thought himself pure and innocent, and denied possibility of salvation unto men that sinned after baptism, so leaving no ladder to Climb up to heaven, but only that of Innocency. What can be more inept, then to lay this censure on the jesuite in that respect? If the jesuite hold the Blessed Virgin to have been ever free from actual sin, doth it follow that he must also so esteem of himself, as did the Novatian? May he not judge her to be an Immaculate Virgin, and yet himself a sinful man, craving pardon of his sins by her prayers? And if he should be so fond also as to think himself unspotted & pure from sin, doth it follow, that he must needs with Acesius exclude from salvation all penitent sinners, & allow no ladder unto heaven, but only that of purity, taking away the other of penance? Surely, you cannot but see this your Inuective to be not only wrongful, but also witless. The same distemper of passion causeth you not to mark the want of coherence betwixt your textual assertions, and Marginal proofs. In your text you say, The jesuit by saying the Blessed Virgin was pure from sin, hath lost his wits by the fever of pride. In proof hereof you cite in your margin this sentence of S. Cyprian, Quisquis se inculpatum dixerit, aut superbus, aut stultus est? who so doth say that himself is without sin, is either proud, or a fool. Do you not yet perceive the wonderful impertinency of this proof? Let the same be put into form, & then you will perchance presently feel it. Whosoever saith that himself is without sin, is a proud fool. The jesuit saith that the mother of God was without sin. Ergo, The jesuit is a proud fool. Verily, the jesuit is not so great a fool as he who doth not perceive the folly of this arguing, which is just as good as this: Who so thinketh himself the holiest, & learnedst Divine of this age, is a very fool. But Francis White thinketh john Caluin the holiest, and learnedst Divine of this age. Ergo, Francis White is a very fool. Suppose you were thus conceited of Caluin, and some Catholic Divine should thus come upon you for the same, would not his folly seem prodigious unto all learned men?  
Other falsifications I might yet further discover, as pag. 5. lin. 8. where to show that the Church shall not be always visible, 
Aug. de unit. Eccles. c. 16.  you bring the Donatists objection; The Scriptures foretell a large revolt from heavenly truth. 2. Thessal. 2.2. these words from heavenly truth, are added to the Text: for the Text only saith first there shall come the defection, or revolt, which most Expositors understand, from the Roman Empire.  
And pag. 519. citing 1. john 5.18. He that is begotten of God SINNETH NOT, for the Divine generation keepeth him, and the wicked One toucheth him not; you omit, sinneth not, that the Scripture might not seem to avouch what you so bitterly rail against, that the Saints of God by special grace may live without sin.  
Likewise to reprove the jesuites doctrine, that Saints though they sinne venially, yet do not sin against the Divine Law: For this Law doth exact things of men no further, than they are necessary unto eternal life; but Venial sin destroyeth, or opposeth nothing that is necessary to eternal life. Against this doctrine you argue pag. 522. lin. 20. If just men have any sin, they perform not all the Divine law requireth; for every sin is a transgression of the Divine law, 1. john. 3.4. Hear to the Text of your English Bible, you add Divine, the Text being, Every sin is a transgression of the Law, or of a Law. And this sentence is true: for though Venial sins be not against the Divine special law, because they are not against Charity and Salvation; yet they are against the law of reason, which bindeth men, as much as may be, not to be forgetful & inconsiderate even in small matters. And though some sentences of Scripture recommend these small things unto us, it is only to put us in mind of what we are bound unto by the law of reason, not to lay new divine obligations upon us, Many such other tricks of your falsehood I omit to discover, for brevityes sake.    

Ignorance, Fraud, and Falsehood in alleging Fathers, and all manner of Authors. SECT. V  
IN this subject I might be large, you being copious in your quotations, whereof scarce one is to be found, which being examined to the original, is not either impertinent, or wrested against the Authors mind, or falsifyed by mistranslation in the very text Which to discover fully and particularly were an hugh work, and hardly worth the labour, and no ways necessary. For even as to the end that one may know the Sea to be salt▪ it is not needful, that he drink up the whole main, two or three tastes taken here and there may sufficiently resolve him of this truth; so four or five examples in every kind may more than abundantly serve, to make this your want of conscience known unto your unwary Credents, that they may see whom they trust, in a business that doth so highly import.  
These your falsifications are of two kinds, some crafty and subtle some gross and impudent Crafty falsification is, when to draw Authors to your purpose, in your translation of their text you either add to it, or detract from it some words or particles, thereby changing the sense, or else cite their words truly, but contrary to their meaning. Gross falsification, is when you lay doctrines to the charge of Authors which they reject even in the places by you cited Both these kinds of falsehood S. Paul doth signify to be practised by Heretics Ephes. 4 8. where he saith, That Christ hath left Pastors and Doctors to his Church, to the end that we be not carried away with the blasts of every doctrine, by the wiliness of men, to circumvent weaklings in error. What be the blasts of heretical doctrine, but their violent and audacious falsifyings of Scriptures and Fathers? What their wiliness to circumvent in error, but crafty corruption, by stealing away, or cogging in words, in their producing of the monuments of Chistian Antiquity. The Greek word used by S. Paul is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies properly, cogging of the dice, or helping the dice craftily to cast what chance they please: Even so Heretics by helping the ye, by cogging words in & out of the Text, make Scriptures & Fathers speak as they please. This your cogging in Scripture is already discovered. Now about the Fathers.  

Seven Testimonies of S. Augustine, about Scripture and Tradition, falsifyed. §. 1.  
TO note some few of the many. Pag. 22. lin. 5. to make S. Augustine seem to favour your Protestant fancy, that men are resolved in faith, by the resplendent Verity, and evidence of the Christian Doctrine, you cite him as saying: 
(*) Cont. Ep. Fund. c. 4.  Manifest Verity is to be pr●fered before all other things, whereby I am h●ld in the Catholic Church In this quotation the word, other is cogged into the text, to change the sense, as if S. Augustine had said, I have many motives to believe the Catholic Doctrine, amongst other the manifest verity of the things revealed, & this is the chiefest of all. S. Augustine's true text is, manifest verity so clearly showed, as no doubt thereof can be made, praeponenda est omnibus, is to be preferred before all these things, whereby I am held in the Catholic Church. Hence it is clear, that the manifest Verity was not the stay, and motive of S. Augustine's faith. For what is preferred before all the motives, that stayed him in the Catholic Church, was none of his motives: But (he saith) that manifest verity so clearly shining as no doubt thereof can be made, is to be preferred before all his motives. Ergo, S. Augustin was not befooled with this foppery, that Faith is resolved finally into the manifest resplendent verity of the doctrine, and things revealed in Scripture.  
near to the same 
(a) Pag. 21. lin. ●2. and in mark lit. b. c.  place, you cite S. Augustine 
(b) Aug. l. 2. de Baptis. c. 3.  saying, That former counsels are corrected by latter: Whence you infer, that the Tradition of the Church is fallible. For what sentence of the Church is infallible, if that of Counsels be fallible, In which (say you) some Papists place the sovereignty of Ecclesiastical authority. Hear you show Ignorance and Falsehood. Ignorance about the doctrine of Catholics: For though some prefer the Council before the Pope, & others the Pope before the Council, in case the whole Council should be opposite to the Pope in matters of Faith to be defined, which case yet never happened; yet all prefer perpetual Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles, before both Pope and Council. For how can we know, that Church definitions made by Pope & Council be infallible, but by Tradition? Some may say, that is clearly proved by Scripture. It is true; but how shall we know the texts assumed in this proof, to be the Apostles Scripture, but by Tradition? How should we be so sure, that we truly expound the Texts aright, did we not see the Tradition, and practise of the Church to have been still conformable to the sense we give of those Scriptures?  
Your Falsehood is, in that you conceal the words that immediately follow in S. Augustine's sentence, which had you set down, 
Aug. lib. 2. de Baptis. c. 3. Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora posterioribus emendari, cùm EXPERIMENTO ●erum aperitur quod clausum erat.  it would have been evident, that he doth attribute fallibility, and corrigibility unto Counsels, only in matters of fact, or Ecclesiastical Laws about manners. For the whole sentence is, Amongst plenary Counsels the former are corrected by the latter, cùm experimento rerum etc. when by EXPERIMENT of things, something is brought to light which before was hidden. Now the truth of matters and mysteries of Faith is not brought to light by time and experience, but the truth of matters of fact is, of which One saith: Quicquid sub terra est in apricum proferet aetas.  
Therefore S. Augustine speaks not of matters of Faith, but of matters of fact, or of Ecclesiastical Laws about manners, which in some cases, time and experience doth discover to be inconvenient, & therefore to be recalled.  
In the same place to prove S. Augustine 
(d) Pag. 21. in lit. b. etc.  held, that the Church in her perpetual Traditions may be deceived, you cite him, saying: 
(e) Aug. l. 2. cont. Crescon. c. 21. E●clesiastici judices, sicut homines, plerumque falluntur.  Ecclesiastical judges, as men, may be deceived: and 
(f) Lib 2. the Baptism. c. 3. Episcoporun litteras quae post confirmatum Canonem Scriptae sunt etc. licere reprehendi. Non debet Ecclesia se Christo praeponere, ut putet à se iudicatos baptizare non posse, ab Illo autem iudicatos posse, cùm Ille semper veraciter iudicet: Ecclesiastici autem judices, sicut homines, plerumque falluntur.  the writings of any Bishops since the Apostles, may be questioned and called into doubt. I do not doubt but you know in your conscience, that S. Augustine in both the places, is alleged oppositely to his meaning. In the first place, he speaketh not about Church-errours in matters of faith, but about errors in matters of fact, or Church judgements, concerning criminal causes. For this is his whole sentence: The Church ought not to prefer herself before Christ, as to say, that men condemned by him as wicked, may validely baptise; but such as she doth condemn, may not, seeing He in his judgements never erreth, whereas Ecclesiastical judges as being men are often deceived. Who doth not see, that you wrong Saint Augustine, to bring this his testimony for his holding the perpetual Tradition of the Catholic Church, hand to hand from the Apostles, by the succession of Bishops, to be fallible? And no less injuriously you produce him in the second testimony. For he speaketh of single Bishops, considered each of them by themselves, that their writings are obnoxious unto error, and so may be questioned and examined by Scripture; thence inferring, that the Donatists should not wonder, that he did examine the Epistle of S. Cyprian, against the Baptism of Heretics: so clear it is he speaks of single Bishops, not of Tradition by the full consent of Bishops.  
Pag. 37. lin. 33. For only Scripture, you cite the same S. August. as thus writing: 
(g) August. in epist· 1. joan. tract. 3.  The Church hath only two breasts wherewith she feedeth her Children, the Scriptures of the Old & New Testament. You corrupt this place by addition & false translation. First, by adding to the text the word only, to make men believe S. Aug. held that no doctrine of Faith is to be believed, which is not clearly contained in Scripture: whereas 
(h) l. 4. de Baptis. c. 6. & 24. l. 5. c. 22.  he hath an express principle to the contrary many times repeated in his works: Sundry things (to wit of faith, such as was the doctrine that Baptism given by Heretics is valide,) are most justly believed to be the Apostles, though they be no where written in the Scriptures. Secondly, S. August. saith not as you translate, that the Churches two breasts are the Scriptures of the Old & New Testament (for them it would follow, that she hath no milk in her two breasts, but written doctrine;) but he saith her two breasts, are the two Testaments of Divine Scriptures. Hence you may gather that in each of her breasts, in each of the Testaments, the milk of Scripture is contained, but that only the milk of written doctrine is in them contained, you cannot from this text truly cited infer, & therefore both by addition, and transposition of words you help the dice.  
To prove, That the Tradition of the Church hath no credit or authority, but from Scripture, and that though this Tradition might be false, yet Faith would subsist, because there remaineth always an higher, and more sovereign judge, to wit, God speaking in the Scripture; To prove this, I say, you 
(i) Pag. 90. in margin. lit. c  cite this text of 
(k) Augustin. lib. 11. 〈◊〉. Faust. c. ●. Tanquam in sede qu●dam in sublimi collocata est cui serui●t omnis Fidelis & pius intellectus.  S. Augustine: It is placed as it were in an high throne of authority, unto which every faithful and pious understanding must be subject. What is this? Why do you not name it? Because you durst not set down the words that immediately precede, which make clearly against you, to wit these: 
(l) Excellentia Canonic●● authoritatis Veteris & Novi Testamenti, Apo●stolorū confirmata temporibus per SUCCESSIONES Episcoporun, & Propagationes Ecclesiarum, tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est etc.  The Canonical authority of the Scriptures, confirmed in the Apostles days, is by SUCCESSIONS of Bishops & propagations of Churches placed in an high throne of authority etc. How directly is this testimony of S. Augustine against that, which you would prove thereby? How hath Tradition no credit or authority but from Scripture, if the Scripture, by successive tradition of Bishop's hand so hand, from the Apostles, hath gotten (quoad nos, in the persuasion of the Christian world) the high seat of Divine authority, to be honoured as God's word, unto which every man must yield? If this successive Tradition, on which (as S. Augustine teacheth) our persuasion about the authority of Scripture depends, be made weak & fallible by Protestants, how shall the Scripture be able to keep her credit, and authority in our Faith? Verily it cannot, except Christians will cease to rely on the authority of God revealing, and on doctrine delivered by the succession of Bishops, & hunt after Divine and Apostolical Scripture, by the sent, and smell of the doctrines delivered therein, as you do.  
Likewise by addition of the Particle Only, you falsify the saying of 
(*) Pag. 95. lin. 31. & in Marg. lit.  Paschasius. For whereas he 
(m) Paschas. in Matth. c. 28. Cum electis semper adfuturum se promittit.  saith, Christ promised to be with his Elect all days until the consummation of the world, you cite him as saying, Only with the elect. More grossly in the same place you falsify Druthmarus: for whereas 
(n) In cap. 28. Matth.  he saith, Christ is with the Reprobate by the presence of his Godhead, but with the Elect in another manner; you make him say Christ promiseth to be only with the elect; contrary to his meaning, who teacheth, that the presence, and perpetual assistance of our Saviour are so united unto his Church, & her Pastors, that they may not err, but still teach all that he commanded: but that presence whereof that Text properly speaketh, is not only afforded unto the Elect, but unto wicked men, for the Salvation of all worthy Communicants, as yourself 
(o) Pag. 52. lin. 14.  affirm.  
You 
(q) See pag. 105.  rail bitterly against the jesuit, for proving, that your Protestant Church cannot be the true Church, nor part thereof, because you severed yourselves from the Roman Church, and did not join unto any preexistent Christian Society of Pastors, but aparted yourselves from the Communion of the whole world. For this his argument you rail against the Roman Church for a whole leaf, pag. 106. and 107. Where thus you conclude your foul Foliall Inuective: They, since their Synod (of Trent) have proceeded from evil to worse, 
(s) The Minister in proof of all this brings nothing: only in the Margin he nameth the Massacre of Paris. Was that done by the Fathers of the Council of Trent? Doth that prove obscuring and outfacing of Truth? Had not the Protestants then slain, been Traitors against their king? Was not the king informed of their plot, to murd●r him, his mother, his brethren & the cheiefest of his Nobles? If to prevent his own instant death the king did by martial law without juridical form, proceed against known Rebels, i● this such a thing as you may say, It surpasseth all perfidious Stratagems, and immane Cruelty of Infidels? what idle Eloquence is this?  obscuring & outfacing the truth with forgery and sophistry. They have conspired against Kingdoms and States, they have surpassed professed Infidels in perfidious stratagems, and immane cruelty. And whereas they expelled us by Excommunication and chased us away from them by persecution, yet this Roman Advocate taxeth us with Schism & Apostasy; never remembering what 
(*) lib. 5. de Baptism. c. 1.  S. Augustine long since delivered; The Sacrilege of Schism is then committed, when there is no just cause of Separation. Thus by long continued, fierce, bitter blasts of false reproach, you dirive your unwary Reader upon the hidden rock of a falsifyed sentence of S. Aug. as though this most Divine Doctor had insinuated the lawfulness of revolt & separation from all Christian Churches. What can be more false? He disputeth against the Donatists who had severed themselves from the Christian world, pretending that Caecilian Bishop of Carthage, & other Catholics had given up the Holy Bibles to the fire. S. Aug. doth convince them of Schism two ways: First because this pretence were it true, is not just, for there can be no just cause of separation from the whole world, and of beginning a new distinct Christian Church. These be his words: 
(t) Augustin. ep. 48. ad Vincent. Fieri non potest ut aliqui iustam causam habeant, qua communionem suam separent à communione Orbis terrarum, eademque appellent Ecclesiam Christi, quòd se iuste ab omnium gentium communione separaverint. Ibid. Nos ideo certi sumus, neminem se à communione omnium Gentium iu●●è separare potuisse etc.  We are certain that none could justly separate themselves from the Communion of the whole world. And again: It is no way possible that any should have reason to separate themselves from the communion of the whole World, and so term themselves the Church, because upon just cause they have divided themselues from the Society of all nations. Thus S. Aug. What can be more direct against that doctrine for which you cite him? Or more efficacious to conclude, that you Protestants are guilty of damnable Schism?  
Secondly (saith S. Augustine) the cause you Donatist pretend is nulla, none at all; it is an untruth, 
(u) Calumniarum suarum ●umos ●actantes. D. Baptis l 5 c 1.  Caecilian having cleared himself from that crime, and been absolved in all manner of Courts: Yea though the same were true, yet by 
(x) Restat v● fateantur nulla malorum etiam cognitorum tali communione Ecclesiam maculari. 〈◊〉 cùm fassi fuerint, non invenient causam cur se ab Ecclesijs separauerin●.  your own principles, it is convinced to be no just cause Wherefore your separation is not only Schism▪ but most eminent and notorious Schism. For than is 
Ape●●issimum autem sacrilegium eminet Schismatis cùm NULLA fuit causa Separationis.  the Sacrilege of Schism most notoriously eminent, when there was NO cause of separation. He doth not say, When there is no just cause of separation, Schism is committed, as though there might be some just cause, and then Schism is not committed; but when there is no cause of all, which may with any colour, or show be pretended for separation, than Schism is not only committed (for it is still committed when separation is made from the whole Christian world what cause soever be pretended) but then, it is notoriously & most evidently committed. Behold how changing the text of S. Augustine, and against justice cogging into the same the word, just, you make his speech to have a sense, just contrary to his meaning. How justly might I charge you with obscuring & outfacing of the truth by forgery, which calumniously, without any proof, you object unto the Sacred Council of Trent? But like to like, such a Religion, such an Advocate.   

Seven Testimonies of other Fathers falsifyed. §. 2.  
LET us also discover some of your corruptions about other Fathers besides S. Augustine. For the fullness of Scripture about all points of faith, you cite these words of 
(*) Serm. de Bapt.  S. Cyprian: Christian Religion finds, that from this Scripture the rules of all learning flow, and that whatsoever is contained in the discipline of the Church, doth arise from this, and is resolved into this. These words Puritan might better then you allege for their Genevian Principle, that not only Church-doctrine, but also Church-discipline must be contained in Scripture, & proved by the clear Texts thereof. But happily they never saw it, or if they did, they durst not be so impudent, as to allege it, as you do, against the meaning of the Author. For S. Cyprian speaks not of the whole volume of Scripture, but only of twelve or thirteen words thereof, to wit, this little sentence: 
(z) Praecipis Domine ut diligam te, & de proximo iubes ut ad meam eum mensuram complectar etc. Legat hoc unum verbum & in hoc mandato meditetur Christiana Religio, & inveniet ex hac Scriptura omnium doctrinarum regulas emanasse etc.  Love thy Lord God with all thy hart, & thy neighbour as thyself. This would have appeared, had you not omitted the words immediately precedent in the very same sentence, Let Christian Religion read this one word, and meditate on this commandment, and it shall find, that from this Scripture the Rules of all learning flow etc.  
And this example may serve to make evident to the eye, your perpetual Protestant Impertinency in alleging words of the Fathers, in which they commend the perfection & fullness of Scripture, for your fancy of only-only-only Scripture. For the Father's meaning is, that all is contained in Scripture in a general, and confuse manner, not so particularly, and distinctly as Scripture may be the sole rule for all necessary points of Faith. This is clear, for what they say of the whole Scripture, they say of some principal particle thereof, as of this: Thou shalt love thy Lord God with all thy hart, and thy neighbour as thyself: But no man that is in his judgement, will say what this sole sentence is a sufficient Rule of Faith, for all necessary points of Doctrine and Discipline: Therefore their commendations of the plenitude of Scripture can enforce no more, then that all is contained in Scripture in some general manner, not so particularly, but that for explication and distinction of many points, the rule of Church's Tradition is necessary.  
For the clarity of Scriptures, that unto them that know not the Tradition of the Church, they are easy, you 
(b) pag. 45 lin. 10  cite S. 
(c) Homil. 2. de verbis Isa. Vidi Dominum.  Chrysostome: Scriptures are not like Metals which have need of workmen TO DIG THEM OUT, but they deliver a treasure ready at hand to them which seek hidden riches in them. It is sufficient that thou look into them etc. Here you falsify the Text of S. Chrysostome, by adding unto it to dig them out, whereby you make both the Father to contradict himself, and his speech to be senseless. For if the Riches of the Scripture be hidden in the Text thereof, as he saith, how is it a Treasure ready at hand without digging or searching? How it is enough to look into the book to find it? Had you digged deeply into the golden Mine of S. Chrysostome, you would perchance have found out his true meaning, & not have imposed upon him this false, and pernicious doctrine.  
S. Chrysostome in getting gold out of mines, doth consider that a double labour is to be undergone. The one to dig out that earth wherewith Gold is mingled. The other to sever the gold from the earth. The first labour he saith is necessary, that we find out the Treasure, & true sense of Scripture: we must (saith 
(d) Chrysost. Homil. 40. in joan. FODERE nos profundius iubet, ut quae altè delitescunt invenire possimus▪ Idem in Gen. Homil. 37. Indagatis Profundis, verum sensum veritatis percipere.  he) not only look into the book, not only attend to the bare reading, but we are commanded to DIG DEEPLY, that we may find out the things that lie hidden in the bottom. For we dig not for a thing that lies open, and READY AT HAND, but for a treasure that is hidden in the deep. Thus S. Chrysostome. How directly against his mind do you make him say, that the sense of the Scripture is a treasure so ready at hand, and obvious, as we need not dig for it?  
In respect of the second labour, to wit, of severing dross from Gold when the same is found, this labour S. Chrysost. saith is needless, in regard of the Scripture. 
In metallis difficile est invenire quod venantur. Etenim cùm metalla Terra sint, & Aurum non aliud quam Terra, similitudo celat aspectum eorum quae quaeruntur. In Scriptures non est eadem ratio. Neque enim proponitur Aurum terrae commixtum, sed Aurum purum etc.  In Mines (saith he) men have difficulty to ●ind out what they hunt for. The Mines being earth, and Gold also earth, this likeness and similitude confoundeth ●he sight, not to discern the one from the other. In scriptures it is not so, the doctrine proposed therein being not gold mingled with earth, but pure Gold; (the word of God is pure silver refined wilth fire) so that the Scriptures be not metals that require workmen (to sever in their doctrine Dross from Gold;) they offer a ready and refined treasure to them that seek the riches hidden in them. Thus S. Chrysostome, and he doth there largely discourse, how every thing in Scriptures, even the Chronologies, and proper Names of men do afford wholesome and profitable doctrine to the Reader; but to find this treasure, we must not (as he there saith) nudam tantùm scripturam aspicere, sed insistere, & cum studio repositas scrutari opes, not only look upon the Scripture, but insist, & with study search out the riches hoarded up therein. Have you not then notoriously falsifyed the sense of his discourse, by the insertion of words of your own?  
In the behalf of your Protestant sole-sufficiency of Scripture, you cite 
(d) Pag. 50. in Marg. lit. E. & pag. 3. lin. 6. & in mark lit. E. & alibi saepe.  this sentence of Durand terming, him A famous Scholeman: Ecclesia licèt Dei Dominationem habeat in terris, illa tamen non excedit limitationem Scripturae. Although the Church have the power & authority of God upon earth, yet that authority doth not exceed the limitation of the Scripture. This place is by you alleged many times in this your Reply, but most impertinently. For his meaning is, that the Church, though it have the authority of God upon earth, 
(e) Matth. 16. v▪ 20. Quicquid solueris, quicquid ligaveris super terram, erit solutum & ligatum in caelis.  yet the same power is in some cases restrained and limited by the Scripture. In which respect the Church cannot dispense in many things wherein God might dispense: In 
(f) Ecclesia licèt habeat authoritatem Dei in tertio, illa tamen non excedit limitationem Scripturae. Scriptura autem docet expresse seruos conversos ad fidem adhuc manner Dominis suis prioribus, licet illi maneant infideles.  particular she cannot, (saith he) exempt slaves that be made Christians from their subjection unto their old Ma●sters, because that the Scripture doth expressly teach, that Slaves converted unto the Faith, are to be still subject to their former Masters, though their Masters be Infidels. Thus Durand. Now what is this to the purpose of proving, that men are bound to believe nothing but what is clearly contained in Scripture? Except, according to your skill in Logic, you will argue in this sort; The Church cannot do the things forbidden her in Scripture, because her power is not beyond the restraint thereof given in the Scripture Ergo, she cannot believe, & teach doctrines proposed unto her by the rule of Tradition without Scripture, which is a thing commended unto her in Scripture; Hold the Traditions you have, whether by speech, or by Epistle. 2. Thessal. 2.15.  
How many times in this your Reply have you cited this testimony of the Master of the Sentences, 
(g) Lombard. l. 4. sent. d. 18. lit. f.  God doth not still follow the judgement of the Church, which sometimes, through ignorance and surreption, judgeth not according to truth. This I say, you cite 
(h) See pag. 89. in lit. ● & p. 93. lit. d & alibi.  to prove, that the Church may err in faith, at the least, about secondary articles. And yet it is most certain and evident, that he speakerh of judgement in criminal causes. For hence he inferretth, 
(i) Soluere noxios vel damnare se putant innoxios, cùm apud Deum non sententia Sacerdotum, sed reorum vita queratur. Et ita apertè ostenditur quòd non semper sequitur Deus iudicium Ecclesiae, quae per ignorantiam & surreptionem interdum iudicat▪  the Church-men must not think because Christ said unto them, whatsoever you bind or lose upon earth, shall be bound & loosed in Heaven, that therefore they may condemn the Innocent and absolve the Nocent. For God in such case doth not follow their sentence, but judgeth according to the life of the accused.  
To prove that the Roman Bishop was not anciently acknowledged the supreme Pastor of the Catholic Church, you say pag. 161. lin. 15. Pope Stephen was slighted by S. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa. In proof whereof you cite in your margin 
(g) Ibid. lit. D.  these words of Firmilian 
(h) Firmil. apud Cyprian. epist. 75. : Atque ego in ●ac parte iuste indignor in tam manifestam & apertam Ste●hani stultitiam, quòd qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloria●ur, & se successionem Petri tenere contendit. And indeed I am justly grieved against the open & manifest fol●y of Stephen, that he so much glorieth of the dignity of his Bishopric, and standeth upon his having the succession of Peter. Thus you. Now behold your falsehood (for I omit your ignorance in naming Firmi●ian as a Bishop of Africa, whereas he was a Bishop ●f the East, to wit of 
(i) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. Caesareae Capadocensis Episcopus.  Caesarea in Cappadocia). Your Legier-de-maine, I say, and falsehood is twofold. First, you omit to let your Reader know that this Firmilian when he wrote this Epistle, was a Quarta●eciman, and also addicted to the Error of Rebapti●ing them that had been baptised by Heretics. And because S. Stephen a most 
(k) Vincent. Lyrinensis adversus Haeres. cap. 9  Holy Pope & Martyr had made a decree against their Novelty, 
(l) Cyprian. epist. 74.  Nihil innovamdum prae●erquam quod traditum, Let no novelty be admitted, ●ut let the ancient Tradition be kept; this Firmilian wrote against him an Epistle full of sharp & contumelious speech. Had you mentioned this quality of Firmilian, which I do not doubt but you knew, your impertinency would have been apparent. For this supposed, your Argument goeth thus. Some Bishops, specially Firmilian, erring against Faith, and blasted for the time with the spirit of Heresy, wrote a contemptuous Epistle against the Sea of Peter. Ergo, the Sea of Peter is not by divine Institution, the Rock of the Church, against which the gates of hell (all heresies) should (rage, but) never prevail.  
Secondly, you notoriously falsify the sentence of Firmilian, in making him to rail against the Roman Bishops being the successor of Peter. For this, even in that his Heretical passion (whereof he afterward was 
(m) This is testified by Dionysius Alexandrinus, who then lived, in his Epistle to Xistus the Successor of S. Stephen. apud Euseb. l. 7. Histor. c. 3. & Niceph. l. 6. c 7.  penitent) he never did; yea he doth rather acknowledge the Roman Bishops succession from Peter, and thence argueth, that seeing to Peter only, Christ said, To thee I will give the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven etc. that Pope Stephen should lest of all men admit, that Heretics who cleave not to Peter's Sea, can validely baptise. For his true words by you falsifyed and curtalled, are these: And 
(n) Quòd una Ecclesia semel à Christo supra Petram solidata est; hinc intelligi potest, quòd SOLI PETRO Christus dixerit: Quaecumque ligaveris super terram etc. Atque adeo in hac parte iustè indignor, quod qui successionem Petri se habere contendit, supra quem Ecclesiae fundamenta posita sunt, alias Petras inducit etc. Firmil. epist. citata.  herein I do justly fret against the open and manifest folly of Stephen, that, seeing he doth so glory of the dignity of his Bishopric, and standeth so much upon his being the successor of Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, that he will bring in two rocks, and the buildings of many Churches, whiles by his authority he doth maintain, that in them (Churches alien from Peter's Sea, or rock) true baptism is given. Thus Firmilian: whence it is clear that he did not revile S. Stephen, in respect of his claiming Primacy and authority by succession from Peter (as you make him to your purpose to do) but that being the successor of Peter, he urged this his Primacy against Anabaptisme; whereas he should rather in Firmilian his opinion, have been 
(o) Stephanus, qui per successionem Petri Cathedram habere praedicat, nullo adversus Haeretico● Zelo excitatur. Ibid. Firmilian.  zealous in denying the validity of Baptism, given by Heretics, who ever impugn the unity of Peter's Chair.  
Whereas your Adversary saith, that the Scripture, to them that know Tradition, is abundantly sufficient, but without Tradition not: Against this 
(p) Pag. 37. lin. 5. & pag. 42. lin 16.  you urge this saying of Vincentius Lyrinensis: 
(*) Vincent Lyr. adu. H●r. c. 2.  The Canon of the Scripture is perfect, and sufficient in itself for all matters, yea more than sufficient. Verily this is sufficient, & more than sufficient to show the beggary of your Religion: otherwise this testimony so impertinent would not be by you and your fellows so perpetually 
(q) john White Defence pag. ●70. Wotton, Field, Whitaker, and who not.  alleged. For Lyrinensis doth not say▪ that the Canon of the Scripture is abundantly sufficient, but only, the same is supposed in an objection or question moved unto him: In answer whereto Lyrinensis doth show, that this supposed sufficiency is not such, but of necessity the rule of Tradition must be joined therewith.  
I know you are not ignorant of the Text, you have read it, but read it I pray you, once again, & therein read the conviction of your falsehood. Some 
(s) Forsitan requirat aliquis c●m sit perfectus etc.  may ASK, seeing the Canon of the scripture is perfect, and sufficient unto itself, in all things, what need is there that the authority of Ecclesiastical interpretation be joined therewith? Because all do not understand the holy Scripture in the same sense; & this in respect of the depth, (or difficulty) thereof, that the same passage is taken this way by one, and that way by another; so that as many dissonant interpretations may seemingly be brought thereof as there be interpreters etc. Hence in regard of the manifold windings and turnings of Error, it is 
(t) MULTUM Necesse est.  VERY NECESSARY, that the line of Prophetical and Apostolical doctrine be squared, according to the 
(u) Ecclesiastici & Catholici sensus norma.  RULE of the ECCLESIASTICAL sense.  
In this Testimony two things are affirmed contrary to the purpose you bring it. First that the sufficiency of Scripture is not so full, nor so perfect, as is supposed in the question; the Scripture being deep, dark, difficile, that setting Tradition aside in lieu of one certain assured Truth, one may find therein manifold windings and turnings of Error. Secondly, that in this respect the Scripture cannot be the only rule of Faith, but it is NECESSARY, and VERY NECESSARY, that besides Scripture, we allow the RULE of Church-Tradition, or Exposition. You knowing this, as you did, with what conscience could you cite this place for the sole-sufficiency of Scripture, & so many times cite it, taking a thing falsely supposed in the Question for the doctrine of the Author?  
Pag 44. lin. 24. to prove the Perspicuity of the Scripture in itself, without the light of Tradition for all necessary points, you cite the words of Irenaeus: All the 
(x) Irenaeus l. 2. cap. 46.  Scriptures both Prophetical & Evangelicall are clear without ambiguity, and may indifferently be heard of all men. Is it possible you durst in defence of your fancy cite this place in this manner, according to which it is false, even in your own fancy? For do not you yourself writ pag. 35. lin. 18. We acknowledge that MANY particular Texts and passages of holy Scripture, are obscure and hard to be understood? How then are all Scriptures, both Prophetical and Evangelicall, clear without any ambiguity indifferently unto all men? Are you also so dull of hearing as not to perceive the jar betwixt this sentence of S. Irenaeus, and the sentences of the Fathers, which after him presently you produce? S. Hierome: It is the manner of Scripture to join that which is manifest, after that which is obscure. S. Augustine: Plain places are found in Scriptures to expound and open the dark & hard. If this be true, how are all the Scriptures clear without ambiguity? yea S. Irenaeus in the very next chapter 
(y) Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Vt in rebu● creati● quaedam Deo subjacent, quaedam & in nostram venerunt scientiam: sic & in 〈◊〉 Scriptures.  saith; That some things in Scripture are clear and manifest, which we must learn and believe▪ other are dark, and obscure, the interpretation of which we must remit unto God.  
Verily these Arguments convince you to have falsifyed Irenaeus, as you have indeed, & very grossly. For he doth not say, All Scriptures are clear without ambiguity, as you cite him, but this: 
(z) Cum itaque universae Scripturae & Propheticae & Euangelicae, in aperto & sine ambiguitate, & similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt, (etsi non omnes credunt) unum & solum Deum (ad excludendos alios) praedicent, omnia fecisse per verbum sicut demonstravimus ipsis Scripturarum dictionibus; valde hebetes apparebunt, qui ad tam lucidam adapertionem caecutiun● oculis, & nolunt videre lumen praedicationis.  Seing all Scriptures, both Prophetical and Apostolical, openly, and without ambiguity, and in manner as they may be heard of all (though all believe not) preach, that one only God made all things by his word, as we have proved by Scriptures so affirming in the same words; how dull sighted may they appear whose eyes against such manifest evidence are blinded, and will not see the light of this preaching? Thus S. Irenaeus, affirming no more than that all Scriptures do evidently preach this one point of Faith, That there is one only God. So that we may say, how dull sighted were you, that would cite this testimony for your fancy against the plain evidence thereof?   

Fowl Calumniation, & Falsification of Hosius, Bellarmine, Petrus à Soto, and Bosius. §. 3.  
IN this kind I may with good reason register in the first place your slanderous dealing with Cardinal Hosius, the falsehood being not only notorious in itself, but also discovered against your Ancestors in forms times. Pag. 151. in fine, and 152. initio, you charge Catholics, That they debase the sacred Scripture, advancing humane Traditions. In proof whereof you allege these words as of Cardinal Hosius; 
(a) Pag. 152. lit. a. Hosius de express. verb. Dei pag. 50.  Non oportet legis aut Scripturae esse peritum, sed à Deo doctum; vanus est labor qui Scripturae impenditur. Scriptura enim creatura est, & egenum quoddam elementum, non convenit Christianum Scripturae addictum etc. A man ought not to be learned in the Scripture, but taught of God; lost is the labour which upon Scripture is spent. For the Scripture is but a Creature, yea an empty element, it doth not become a Christian to be conversant in the same.  
These words contain horrible Blasphemy, in so much as Cardinal Hosius himself hearing that some Protestants in their printed books had laid this sentence to his charge, did not doubt to say: 
(b) Bellarmin. de concilijs in praefat.  That I should thus affirm? Verily had I so written, I were worthy to be burnt in the market place. What then? Hath not Hosius the words? Indeed the words are found in the Cardinal's book, but how? brought as blasphemy spoken in the person of the Swenckfeldian Sect, or of the Heavenly Prophets. This is Hosius his discourse: 
(c) Hosius de expresso Dei verbo pa. 545. Tom. 2. operum Hosij. Lugduni apud Guil. Rovillium. Anno M.D.LXIV.  When men (saith he) seek to draw the Scripture 〈◊〉 their own fancies, not regarding the sense & exposition of the Church, what do they but (as S. Augustin saith) open a way that the authority of the Scripture be wholly abolished? Do we not see this Prophecy performed in this our Age? Yes verily: Luther first rose up, and endeavoured to 〈◊〉 Scriptures unto the liking of his fancy. Against him rose Carolstadius, and out of him Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, Caluin, and other innumerable Sects, most mainly ●●posite the one to the other, yet each of them claiming manifest Scripture on their side. Hereupon the Heavenly prophet's, whose Prince is Swenckfeldius 
(d) Viderunt hoc Caelestes Prophe●ae (quorun Princeps Suenckfeldius) quòd isti suo sensui Scripturas 〈◊〉 empe●a●ēt & sic secum cogitare coeperunt. Quo usque tand● hanc Excucullatorum tyrannidem feremus. etc.  perceauing ●●ese men to make no other use of Scriptures, then to persuade ●nto silly people what they please, under pretence of God's 〈◊〉 and express word, began thus to discourse with themselves: HOW long shall WE endure these Friars, that ●●●ue cast of their Hoods & Habits? Shall we be still forced 〈◊〉 adore as God's holy word whatsoever they please to propose 〈◊〉 us cloaked with Texts of Scripture? No, we will hereafter ●●pect the resolution of our Questions from Heaven, & bid ●●ese Contentioners to be packing together with the Scriptures, which they pull this & that way as they list to establish ●●posite doctrines. What the heavenly Father shall in priorate please to reveal unto us, that shall be our express word ●f God. A CHRISTIAN ought not to be skilful in ●he Law and Scripture, but taught of God: lost is the labour ●hat on Scripture is spent; for the Scripture is but a creature, and an empty ELEMENT. Hosius having thus 〈◊〉 down these words and blasphemies of the ●wenckfeldian Sect, addeth his Censure upon them as followeth. You see (most Pious King) how truly the saying of S. 
(e) Aug. l. 32. cont. Faust. c. 19 Videtis id vos agere, ut omnis de m●dio Scripturarum auferatur authoritas, & suus cuique animus auctor sit.  Augustine is, that whiles men labour by their private interpretations to make the Scripture the subject, 〈◊〉 one of his own fancy, they open a wide gap unto men, 〈◊〉 deny the authority of the Scripture. And again: 
(f) Quo res ad extremum redijt! stupor & mirabilia▪ Natum est nowm Prophetarum genus, qui Scripturarum authoritate Scripturis omnem authoritatem detra●ere non sunt veriti.  O ●●onder, able to astonish any man! To what a pass by Satan's subtlety are men come! Unto what extreme misery is the ●orld brought? whiles every Sect will wrest the Scripture to 〈◊〉 self, and challenge the sole true exposition thereof, be●old a new Sect of Heavenly Prophets is sprunge up, which 〈◊〉 not doubt by the authority of Scriptures, to take away frō●cripture all authority. Behold the true words of Hosius, and together behold what impudence it is to urge the blasphemous words by you cited as his. 〈◊〉 blasphemous assertions may be laid to the charge of them that with detestation relate them, you may lay the blasphemies of wicked men related in Scriptures on the sacred writers. You may impeach Sal●mom for this speech of the ungodly, 
(g) Sap. c. 1.  Come let 〈◊〉 enjoy the pleasures that are, let there be no meadow wherein our luxury do not wallow itself. You may endight o● blasphemy S. john for the words of the jews abou● our Saviour, 
(h) joan. 9.16.  This man is not of God who keepeth 〈◊〉 the Sabboath Day. You might charge Saint Matthew with the words of the pharisees, 
(i) Math. 11.19.  Behold a glutton, & drinker of wine.  
I have not read in any Protestant Minister a more foul Calumniation of any Catholic Author except only one in yourself against Bellarmine. Bellarmine (say 
(k) Orthodox pag. 136.  you) saith: A man is not bound to believe the Scripture to be Divine, because the Scripture 〈◊〉 self saith so, more than one is to believe the Alcoran 〈◊〉 be of God, because in sundry places thereof we read, that 〈◊〉 was sent from Heaven by God. What horrible blasphemy is this? What Christian will not tremble at the hearing thereof? The Scriptures affirmation is no more to be believed, than the Alcoran? Hath Bellarmine this sentence, which you cite in a distinct letter, as his formal assertion? Behold the true words of Bellarmine for the Reader, that seeing your falsehood, he may join together with detestation of Turkish impiety, detestation of your Protestant slandering: 
(l) Nam etiamsi Scriptura dicat, Libros Prophetarum & Apostolorum esse divinos, tamen non certò id credam, nisi priùs credidero Scripturam quae hoc dicit esse Divinam. Nam etiam in Alcorano Mahumeti legimus ipsum è caelo à Deo missum esse, & tamen non ei credimus.  Although the Scripture say, that the Books of the Prophets and Apostles be divine, yet shall I not certainly believe it except I have aforehand believed the Scripture, which doth 〈◊〉 affirm to be divine. For also in sundry places of Maho●●ts Alcoran we read, that the same was sent of God from hea●●●●, yet do we not believe it. Is there no difference betwixt, these two sayings, A man is not bound to believe the Scripture affirming the books of the Prophets to be Divine, 〈◊〉 then the Alcoran: and this: I should not believe the Scripture saying the books of Prophets are divine, except I 〈◊〉 believe the Scripture that so saith? Verily they differ 〈◊〉 much as Hell and Heaven, as Blasphemy and Truth.  
With Hosius you join Petrus Soto to be a debaser 〈◊〉 Scriptures, 
(m) Pag. 152. in lit. a.  citing these words as his: 
(n) Petrus Soto ●nstructio Sacerdotum Part. 1. lect. 6. pag. 17. if he be truly cited, for in my Edition, it is pag. 25.  Quae 〈◊〉 cultum pertinent, magis ex traditione & Spiritus Sancti ●●●ustratione, quàm ex scriptura petenda sunt. The things 〈◊〉 belong unto worship, are to be taken by Tradition, and the light of the Holy Ghost, rather than from 〈◊〉 Scripture. Thus you. Omitting, and putting in ●●ordes, chopping and changing the Text. Let us ●●are the Authors very words: 
(o) Aduer●ant hunc Doctrinae Euangelicae modum. Quod ad vitae rationem attinet, post illa quae communia sunt omnibus, qualia sunt praecepta Decalogi, atque dilectionis Dei & Proximi, de quibus Christus frequenter loquitur▪ Post haec inquam omnia, aduer●ant plura esse quaerenda extraditione & illustratione Spiritùs Sancti, potiùs quàm ex Scriptura, praecipuè quae ad cultum pertinent▪  Post haec omnia ●●uertant, plura quaerenda esse ex Traditione, & illustra●●one Spiritus sancti, quàm ex Scriptures; praecipuè quae ad ●●ltum pertinent. After all these things, that is, after a ●riest knows, not only the articles and mysteries of ●ayth, but also, in respect of manners and good life, 〈◊〉 communia omnibus, de quibus Christus frequenter lo●●itur, those things that are commonly to be kept 〈◊〉 all Christians, as the Ten Commandments, and 〈◊〉 like▪ about which Christ doth frequently speak: ●fter they know these things, let them remember, that more ●●ings yet are to be sought for rather by Tradition, and the 〈◊〉 Ghosts illumination, then by the Scripture, sp●cially 〈◊〉 things that belong unto Reverence. In these words petrus Soto delivers two things. First that the things concerning matters, not only of Faith, but also of good life that are common and must be known of all Christians, are largely delivered in holy Scripture. Secondly, that post haec omnia, after the knowledge of all these common substantial matters, 〈◊〉 for other particular things, they are to be learned by Tradition, more than by Scripture. Hence I infer that Petrus Soto by the words, quae ad cultum pertinent, doth not mean the main duties of Latriae, and Religion; but Reverential carriage and ceremonies to be used in the administration of the Sacraments. This is clear. For by things pertinent unto Reverence, he means things that are not common unto all, nor to be known and observed of all But the main duties of Latria & Religion are common unto all Christians: Therefore Soto doth not mean them in his words Quae ad cultum pertinent; but only things of ceremonial Reverence in the use of the Christian sacrifice and Sacraments, as the Author 
(p) Quae autem in celebratione Baptismatis, & qua ratione agenda sunt, ubi est scriptum? Credendúmne est, tantum Ministerium sine ulla praeparatione, SOLEMNITATE & RITV quae ad eius excitant venerationem traditum esse? Ibid. pag. 26.  doth also in that place declare. So that it is in you wonderful boldness, by so many leave out by so many alterings and transposing of words, to change Sotus his meaning, as though he had been besotted with Swenckfeldian fancy of immediate Revelation without Scripture.  
In your Reply to the Preface, 
(m) These leaves want numbers, but it is in the sixth leaf the first side from the beginning of the Reply to the Preface.  you say, Th●● the Roman Church doth require, that Protestants send the holy scriptures packing, and not reckon the same among D●●uine Principles. To make this slander good, you 〈◊〉 in the margin 
(n) Had Bosius spoken inconsiderately, what folly or impotent malice is it to urge the unadvised speech of a private writer, as the faith of the Church?  Bosius de sig. Eccles. lib. 16. cap. 10. scriptura non refertur inter eiusmodi principia; the Scripture is not reckoned amongst these principles, 〈◊〉 wit, Divine. This saying of Bosius you repeat over & over in your Book; yea the same is twice repeated in your answer to the jesuits Preface. In your Orthodox you have it also, and your 
(o) Defence pag. 1●1.  Brother more often, as though Bosius did say, the Scriptures were not Divine. But your slander is intolerable, for he doth not say, that Scriptures are not reckoned amongst Divine Principles, but only not amongst the articles of the Creed. His words are: We know, that amongst other articles of the Creed one is, I believe the holy Catholic Church: Now these articles are as it were certain principles, which must be known and believed in the first place: But the Scripture is not numbered amongst THESE Principles, although it be named HOLY, and SACRED.  
Hence appeareth, how notoriously you slander and falsify Bosius, by making him say, that Scriptures are not numbered amongst Divine Principles. First, because he saith not, they are not numbered amongst Divine Principles, but only not amongst the twelve Articles of the Creed; which is a truth so manifest, as Ministers cannot be ignorant thereof, if they be acquainted with the Creed. Secondly, because in that very place and sentence, he doth affirm the contrary, to wit, that the Scriptures are holy and sacred. What is this but Divine? Verily this accusation that Protestants if they will be Catholics must send the Scriptures packing, is as true, as what you 
(s) Answer to the Preface fol. 6. pag. 1. lin. 19  there also affirm, That they must let the Roman Nahash pluck out their right eye, and vow blind obedience unto him. Which you prove, because Bonaventure 
(t) In vit● Francisci c. 5.  saith, that S. Francis exhorted his Friars unto blind Obedience. As though Protestants might not be admitted into the Roman Church, except they will be Friars; or that by Religious obedience men put out their right eye, which regardeth God, and Heaven, and not tather the left, which looketh upon earth and worldly pleasure. Had you either the right, or left eye of Wisdom you would not write as you do. Had you any spark of divine Wisdom, you would not vent such false, & odious slanders. Had you any dram of humane Wisdom, you would blush to confirm your slanders, with such silly and ridiculous proofs.   

Other Fathers impudently falsifyed, as if they did deny, what they do most constantly maintain, and prove. §. 4.  
YOU are so bold in your Falsehood, as you dare cite the Fathers for your fancy, where ex professo, even of purpose they dispute against it, and prove the contrary. Pag 85 lin. 26. you say, the gifts of doing Miracles were never promised in the Scripture to be perpetual, and are long since ceased. Augustin. Retract. l. 1. c. 13. Now S. Augustine doth in that place say, and prove the contrary; to wit, that though Miracles be not now ordinarily annexed unto the office of teaching and administration of Sacraments, as they were in the Primitive Church▪ yet Miracles are done, and frequently done, so that they are for multitude innumerable. I never meant (saith 
(a) August. lib. 1. retract. c. 13.  he) as though that now no Miracles are done in the name of Christ, for that in Milan a Blindman received his sight at the Shrine of the Martyrs; and sundry the like miracles myself did even then know to have been done: In which kind so many are wrought in this our age, as we neither know them all, nor can number them we know. How durst you name this testimony to prove Miracles to be ceased?  
Also that Miracles cannot be sufficient testimonies of Christian Faith, as the 
(b) Si non opera in eyes fecissem quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent. joan. 15. ●4. & 5.20. Ego habeo Testimonium maius joanne: Opera enim quae dedit mihi Pater ut faciam, ipsa testimonium perhibent de me.  Scripture termeth them, you 
(c) Pag. 112. lin. 24.  cite Suarez the jesuit 
(d) De fide Catholica contra Sect. Anglican. l. 1. c. 7. §. 3.  saying Haec adulterari possunt, & ita exteriùs fingi, ut non sint necessaria signa verae fidei. Miracles may so be adulterared and externally falsifyed, that they can not be necessary signs of the true Faith. Thus you cite Suarez: but how grossly? These be not the words of Suarez, but words spoken by way of objection in the behalf of Protestants for their Paradox, That the Church is invisible. This is then your argument in Suarez: Without faith the true Church can not subsist. But there are no infallible, external, & visible signs of true faith, seeing even Miracles themselves may be forged and counterfeit. Ergo the Church cannot be assuredly known by visible marks. Suarez having urged this argument with others largely, he saith, 
(e) Ibid. § 8.  Notwithstanding all this, we must believe the Church to be visible. And to the Argument about Miracles 
(f) Ibid. c. 8. §. 9 Non ad cognoscendam singulorum credentium fidem, sed ad cognoscendam congregationem verè credentium.  he saith, that though they be not certain tokens of the sanctity of the person that doth them, yet they are sufficient signs to prove, that true Faith & sanctify are in the Church wherein they are done. So that what Suarez the jesuit setteth down out of Protestants, as to be by him refelled, you produce as the assertion, and doctrine of Suarez.  
If you believe, that God will severely punish those that deceive souls in matter of Religion, by forgery and fraud; I wonder how you did not fear to cite 
(g) Pag. 160. lin. vlt. & in mark lit▪ a▪  S. Chrysostome Homil. 3. upon the Acts, as affirming, That no Monarchical and supereminent actions were exercised by S. Peter, no vassalage or subjection yielded him by the rest of the Apostles. In your margin you cite these words his: Petrus egit omnia, ex communi discipulorum sententia, nihil ex authoritate, nihil cum imperio. Peter did all things by common advice of the disciples, nothing by way of authority and command. Thus you cite S. Chrysostome. Now see, your falsehood. He saith not as you cite him, universally Peter never did any thing by way of authority and command, but speaking of the election of S. Mathias, he saith, that in this business he did all by common advice, not by way of authority: and then addeth presently, that this not using authority was wisdom and modesty, not want of authority in Peter. Behold his words so pregnant for Peter's Monarchy, as nothing can be spoken more fully. Why doth he (Peter) communicate this business with them? 
(h) Quid? An non licebat ipse eligere? Licebat & quidem maximè. Verumtamen non id fecit, ne cuiquam gratificari videretur.  What? Had he not power to make the election himself? He might verily have done it alone, without any question, but he did not, lest he should be thought partial to some one, had he chosen him by this sole authority. And again. This was the wisdom, and foresight of this Doctor: He said not, We alone are sufficient to teach; and although he had right to appoint an Apostle, as much as they all had, (that is, he could alone have done as much, as together with them in respect of his eminent power) yet this doing it with advice, was agreeable to the virtue of the man; and because eminency in spiritual power is not an Honour but Care of subjects, yet worthily 
(i) Meritò primus omnium authoritatem usurpat in negotio, ut qui omne● habebat in manu. Ad hunc enim dixit Christus, & tu conversus confirms Fratres ●uo●.  doth he FIRST before them all EXERCISE AUTHORITY in the business, who had ALL THE REST AT HIS DISPOSITION, and will. For this is he, unto whom our Lord said: Thou being converted, confirm thy Brethrens. Thus S. Chrysostome. Can any thing ●e devised more full, to show that Peter had, and did exercise Monarchical authority? specially seeing S. Chrysostome in that very place saith further upon the words: Peter rising up in the midst of the Disciples said: 
(k) Quomodo cognoscit creditum sibi à Christo Gregem▪ quam in hoc Choro est princeps?  Behold how fervent is Peter: how he doth acknowledge ●nd overuiew the FLOCK COMMITTED to HIM by Christ: How doth he show himself PRINCE & Primate ●f this Quire. Behold likewise the modesty of james: He ●ad the office of Bishop of Jerusalem, yet he speaketh nothing. Consider also the singular modesty of the rest of the Apostles, 
(l) Quo pacto concedunt ei solium non ampliùs disceptantes.  how they YIELD the THRONE of Primacy ●nto him, not striving for it amongst themselves as they ●ad formerly done. Thus S. Chrysostome: which things ●re so clear for Peter's exercising Monarchical Pri●acy, and for the Apostles yielding Vassalage unto ●im, that it is manifest you could not cite this place ●ut against your Conscience, knowing you did but delude souls in matters of Salvation, against the ●ruth.   

Gross Imputations, with manifest Falsehood imputed unto Card. Baronius. §. 5.  
WHAT impudence it is for you to write, as you do, pag. 114. lin. 14. 
(a) Baron. an. 1089. n. 11. Non eos homicidas arbitramur.  It is monstrous doctrine which was hatched by Pope Vrban, and approved 〈◊〉 Baronius, that they are not to be judged Murderers ●hich slay Excommunicate persons. As who should say ●ope Vrban and Baronius affirm, that to murder ●ny way, any Excommunicate persons, is no sin. ●ut your slander will seem monstrous when their doctrine, according to truth, is set down. This it is. Certain Cleargymen, and Schismatical Priests of ●ewd and dissolute life, excommunicated by the Church, did against the laws of the Church, take arms and were slain in the field, 
(b) In a battle fought betwixt Henry Emperor & Egbert marquis of Saxony.  as men may justly be in lawful war.  
Now because the law of the Church censures such as strike Cleargymen, they that killed these wicked & seditious priests in the field, had a scruple and demanded absolution, and penance of their Bishop. The Bishop wrote of the matter to Pope Vrban, who answered: 
(c) Iuo part. 10. c. 54.  That although he did not judge those, that thus had killed such Excommunicate persons in the battle, to be murderers, yet that the discipline of the Church might be kept, & also because such as killed them though the fact were lawful, might have had some sinister and insincere intention therein (as doing it out of private enmity,) that therefore the Bishop 
(d) Secundun intentionem eorum, modum congruae satisfactionis iniunge.  should according to their intention & desire, enjoin them a measure of congruous penance. Hence it follows, that it is no sin to kill any excommunicate person, even Priests when they be invaders of our life, and in just war; but universally, that it is no sin to kill any excommunicate person what way soever, is not Pope Urbans Monstrous Doctrine, but a Monster of your Protestant slandering, out of a monstrous desire you have to delude, and enrage men with lies, against the Catholic Church.  
In the same page, 114. lin. 29. You thus write of Baronius: 
(e) Baron. Anno 1106. n. 14.  Cardinal Baronius commendeth to the skies young Henry the Emperor's son, for rebelling against his natural Father, for deposing, imprisoning him, and bringing him with sorrow to the grave. What Turk or Savage would be the Encomiast of such unnatural and enormous Villainy? Thus you. Let the truth be examined, and then it will appear, that Baronius his commendation ●f young Henry is not to the sky, but your slandering of Baronius comes from as low as the pit of Hell. ●irst it is false, according to truth of the History, that henry the Fourth Emperor died of sorrow, in the ●estraynt which he had laid upon him by his Son 
(f) See Baronius ibid. and all other Historians that writ of these matters.  nay he was in that durance used with such mildness and liberty, as he easily got away, gattered for●es, and invaded his Son, who by his own con●ent, and by the voices of all the Electours, and princes of the Empire, had been made, & crowned emperor. This is your first untruth, that Baronius ●rayseth that imprisoning of the Father, wherein he ●as brought with sorrow to his grave, by his Son.  
Secondly, Baronius doth not commend young henry at all for that fact, but only speaketh conditionally, and on both sides, no more in his praise ●en his dispraise. For having set down the letters which the Emperor Henry the Elder, now being at ●●berty, wrote full of complaint against his son, ●aronius thus turneth his speech to the Reader: If 
(g) Baron. Tom. 12. pag. 46.  ●hou sit Arbiter betwixt the Father & the Son; as for ●he Sons procuring his Father's restraint and deposition from the Empire, by the Peers and Princes thereof, the ●onne is not to be condemned, IF (as he pretended) HE ●ID this sincerely, out of 
(h) Si verè pietatis intuitu, prout prae se tulit, ea omnia praestitit.  PIETY, to bring his Father unto a better mind, and to make him seek to be absolved from Excommunication wherewith he had been so many ●●mes tied and chained. On the other side, IF (as his Father complains) HE DID those things by wicked plots ●nd stratagems, by perjury and breaking his oath given to ●is Father, verily HIS DEED CANNOT DE PRAISED: 〈◊〉 wonderful is the justice of God, that this Emperor ●●ould suffer the same persecution from his wicked Son, which he had by perpetual incorrigible hatred, for many years together, offered unto his spiritual Father. Thus Baronius.  
Hence it is apparent, that as Baronius and Bellarmine were great friends in their life, so they are by you slandered in the same manner after their death. That Bellarmine may seem Turkish and guilty of propension to Turkism, you make him say, The Scripture affirming a thing, is not therefore to be believed more than Mahomet's Alcoran, whereas he only saith conditionally, I should not firmly believe the Scripture affirming a thing, did I not aforehand believe the Scripture to be divine, as I do not the Alcoran though it say of itself, that it is of God. Even so to make Baronius seem more savage than any Turk, whereas he saith conditionally, If young Henry did restrain his Father sincerely out of piety for the good of his Father, that he might return to the Church, be absolved of excommunication, & afterward peaceably enjoy his Empire, this kind of severity was indeed piety; you make the proposition absolute, and make Baronius say: It was piety in the Son, to use Cruelty to his Father. The Reader, I do not doubt, seethe the exorbitancy of this false dealing.  
I must needs add another falsification you 
(i) Pag. 56. in margin. lit. c.  use towards Baronius, accusing him as blasphemously extolling the Authority of the Pope, in this saying, 
(k) Baron. Ann. 373. num. ●1.  Vt planè appareat ex arbitrio dependisse Romani Pontificis Fidei Decreta sancire, & sancita mutare: Whence it appeareth that it was in the power of the Roman Bishop, to establish Decrees of Faith, and to recall the established. This you bring, as if Baronius had held, the Pope may make, and un-make Decrees about the Truth of Faith, making that to be Truth which before was Error, and that Error which before was Truth So easily do you believe & charge any Barbarous and Inhuman conceit upon Catholic Authors▪ But he that shall consider attentively the Antecedents & Consequents of the place, will see▪ that Baronius speaketh not of Decrees of Faith in regard of the truth of Doctrine (which are Eternal, and so immutable that if the Pope should endeavour to change them, he were 
(l) Decret. d. 40. c. 6. Si Papa.  by Catholic Doctrine an Heretic, and to be deposed) but only of decrees of faith, about keeping, or denying Communion unto persons suspected of Heresy, in regard of doubtful propositions. This would have appeared had you cited the words of Baronius that immediately follow. This is his whole sentence: Hence 
(m) Baron. Tom. 4. pag. 306. Decreta sancita mu●are & DECERNERE quibuscum à reliqua Ecclesia COMMUNICANDUM sit.  it may appear, that it did depend on the judgement of the Roman Bishop to establish Decrees of Faith, and to recall the established, and to DECREE with whom the rest of the Church were to keep COMMUNION. Hence it is evident that Baronius speaketh of Decrees of faith declarative, with whom Communion in Faith is to be kept, & that those are mutable, as the Church shall see cause.  
For the better understanding whereof, we must know, that it was the practice or Heretics, 
(n) Sic Verba temperant, sic ambigua quaeque concinnan, ut nostram & adversariorum confessionem teneant. Hieron. epist. ad Pammach. &▪ Ocean.  as S. Hierome noteth, to couch their Errors in such ambiguous words, that taken one way, they sounded Heretically & another way, they carried a Catholic sense. Hence upon the arising of new Heretics, even the Catholic Fathers were sometimes devised, some communicating with, some denying communion unto such Dogmatizants. The decision of these doubts is to be made by the Catholic Church, and the supreme Pastor thereof, in which case the Church may change her decrees. For when there is sufficient reason to think that such propositions be taken by the Authors in the Heretical sense, Decree is to be made, that no communion be held with them. If afterward it appear by good proof, that they meant the said propositions according to the Catholic sense, they may be received by some latter Decree, and the former Decree, about avoiding their Communion, may be repealed. In this sense true is the saying of S. Augustine: 
(o) Lib. 5. de Baptism. c. 1.  That former Counsels are reform by later, when by experiment of things what before was hidden cometh to light. In this sort ancient Counsels 
(p) In concilio Ephes. Christiparae nomen explosum est Canis. de B. Virg. l. 3. c. 19  made this decree of Faith, that none should term the most Blessed Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ's Mother, because by that Title Heretics did mean tacitly to imply, that she was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God's Mother. And yet this Decree of Faith is now by custom repealed, because it now appeareth that such as term her Christ's Mother mean not thereby to deny, that she is truly and verily God's Mother.  
This is that which Baronius saith: for speaking of the Apollinarians who did utter their Errors 
(q) Ruffin. de adulterate. libror. Origen.  in doubtful words, he saith, that first by Pope Damasus they were rejected as Heretics, and Catholics were forbidden to communicate with them. Afterwards these 
(r) Greg. Nazian. ad Chelid. epist. 2.  Apollinarians falsely gave out that the Council of the Western Church, including principally the Roman Bishop, had again received them into Communion. Upon the news of this report, S. Gregory Nazianzen thus writeth. Those that agree with Apollinaris say, that they were admitted by the Council of the West, or Roman Bishop, by whom it is manifest they were once condemned: Yet 
(s) Hoc ostendant & nos acquiescemus.  let them but show this, and we yield. For it is manifest 
(t) PERSPICWM enim eos veritati assen●iri (nec enim aliter se res habere potest) si hoc consecuti sunt.  that their doctrine doth agree with the true Faith (for it cannot otherwise be,) if they have obtained this. This S. Gregory Nazianzen. Hence Baronius doth infer against Heretics that the Grecian Fathers did bear such reverence unto the Roman Church, and Roman Bishop, believing he could not err, that if his Decrees declarative of doubtful & ambiguous propositions should change & alter, they were ready to change and alter with him, and to think that manner of speech in matters of Faith most fitting for the present, which he did for the present allow. This I say, is all that Baronius doth affirm, not that the Pope may change his Decrees about the truth of the articles and mysteries of Faith, as you in your blind aversion would impose upon him, catching at words & syllables of every less clear sentence, which to be the right jog 
(u) Aguntur spiritu maligno in pios, ut Satanicâ virulentia incensi, EORUM VERBA ET SCRIPTA NON MALOTIO SE INTERPRETARI non possint. Loc. common. Martini▪ Lutheri 5. Class. pag. 26.  of the Caluinian spirit, Luther long ago noted.    

THE CONCLUSION.  
BEHOLD good store of your Ignorances', Impertinencyes, Misallegations of Scriptures, Wilful & Unconscionable Falsehoods in your producing the Fathers, which I offer unto your Picture to adorn that Crown, which in your Glorious Humour you have caused to be set over your Book, in the second page thereof, giving it the Title of Wisdom and Truth's Triumph. Verily, no jewels and Gems can sit the Crown of such Wisdom and Truth as yours is, better than these, being made in this Censure Clear, Shining, Illustrious by manifest proof▪  
My purpose was, to have discovered many besides these, yea more than an hundred, no less notorious than these, about the Nine Points, with many other eminent Untruths; but now I perceive, that hereby your Picture would grow, though not disproportionable to the greatness of your Desert, yet into a greater bigness they Paper-Images use to have, which commonly are still less than their Patterns. I must therefore remain indebted unto you for the rest, which are many hundreds, engaging myself to pay the last farthing of this debt, whensoever the same shall be exacted, with sufficient assurance that the performance thereof shall avail, not only to your personal Disgrace, but also to the public Good, by conversion of so many, by you miserably seduced, souls. Although I must confess, that the former are so many, and so clear, as they may sufficiently resolve such, as depend on you, of their miserable and dreadful danger; and move them to return to the truth, if they err through weakness of Understanding, not through wilfulness of hart. For as S. Cyprian saith, 
(x) Lib. aduer. Demetrianum initio.  Qui ad malum motus est mendacio fallente; multò faciliùs ad bonum movebitur veritate cogente; such as have been simply lead away unto evil, by the fallacy of lying; will more easily be brought back again unto Good, by the force of Truth.  
FINIS.    

THE ANSWER UNTO The Nine Points of Controversy, Proposed by our late Soveraygne (of Famous memory) unto M. Fisher of the Society of JESUS. AND THE REJOINDER Unto the Reply of D. Francis White Minister.  
Et faciam VOS fieri PISCATORES Hominum.  Matth. 4.19. 
And I will make YOU FISHERS of Men.  
Permissu Superiorum, M.DC.XXV.   

His Majesties Note delivered unto M. Fisher.  
SOME of the principal points which withhold my joining unto the Church of Rome, except she reform herself, or be able to give me satisfaction, Are these.  

1. The worship of Images.  
2. The Praying & Offering oblations to the Blessed Virgin Mary.  
3. Worshipping & Invocation of Saints, & Angels.  
4. The Liturgy, & private Prayers for the Ignorant in an unknown Tongue.  
5. Repetitions of Pater Nosters, Aves, & Creeds, especially affixing a kind of merit to the number of them.  
6. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation.  
7. Communion under one kind, & the abetting of it by Concomitancy.  
8. Works of Supererogation, especially with reference unto the Treasure of the Church.  
9 The Opinion of deposing Kings, and giving away their Kingdoms by Papal power, whether directly, or indirectly.    

THE PREFACE.  
Most Gracious, and Dread Soveraygne,  
A Conference about Religion between Doctor White and Me, was occasion, that your Majesty called me to your gracious Presence, not disdaining to dispute with one so mean and unworthy as myself; imitating his Benignity whose Vicegerent you are, and according to the Phrase of Holy Scripture, As 
(a) 2. Reg. 14.17. Sicut Angelus Dei, sic est Dominus meus Rex.  his Angel. And as it is the property of the Good Angel, first to strike fear and terror into them to whom he appears, but in the end to leave them full of comfort; in like sort your Majesty. For though the first salutation carried a show of severity, yet your dismissing me was benign and gracious, not only pardoning my earnestness in defending the part of the Catholic Church, but also saying, 
(*) What the Minister doth object against this narration, is refuted in M. Fisher's Book, about untruths falsely laid to his charge.  You liked me the better.  
The grateful acknowledgement, and admiration of this your Princely Clemency, makes me desire from the bottom of my Soul, that I could fully satisfy your Majesty of my dutiful and loyal affection, which is fast tied unto your sacred person by a threefold 
(b) Funiculus triplex difficilè rumpitur. Eccles. 14.14.  inviolable bond. The 
(*) The Minister saith, that the jesuits Oratory is plausible, and thereupon enters into a common place, that Truth needs no Trimming, which is true, yet if needs many times Apologies & Defence against Slanders.  Law of nature obligeth me thereunto, as being your Majesty's born Subject, the transgression whereof were Unnatural, Barbarous, Inhuman.  
The Law of God requires the like constant, and perfect Allegiance at my hands, binding me to regard you as his Lieutenant, and to acknowledge your power and authority, as 
(c) Rom. 13.1.  his Ordination: so that according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, I must not only outwardly observe, but also admit your Majesty's will and command with Reverence, into the secret closet of my inmost 
(d) Rom. 13.5.  Conscience & Soul.  
The Constitutions also of the Order whereof I am an unworthy member, do strictly command me the same, in severest manner charging the Subjects thereof no ways to meddle in State-matters, or in Princes affairs; much less under pretence of Religion to attempt any thing, or to consent unto any enterprise, that may disturb the quiet and tranquillity of Kings and Kingdoms. And seeing we are so devoted to our own Institute, that our 
(e) Colloquium de Secretis jesuitarum.  Adversaries thereupon amongst many other Calumniations, lay to our charge, that we more reverently esteem, & carefully observe the constitutions of our Rule, than the Law of God; I shall for your Majesty's fuller satisfaction, set down some part of our Constitutions in this point, in manner following.  

(f) Decret. 101. Cong. 5. General. ac Can. 12. ●iusdem.  
(g) Monita Gener. §. 18. The Constitutions, out of which these are taken, be termed Monita Generalia, General Admonitions, because they concern generally all persons of the Order, by way of distinction from Particular, which concern only some kind of persons, as Preachers, Masters etc. Which particular Admonitions are as public as the general. Whereby you may see the Minister's ignorance in Logic to be equal unto his malice against jesuits, who saith that the term of General Admonitions, forbidding to meddle in State-matters, argueth that jesuits have other Secret Admonitions, that warrant such meddling. As though General Admonitions were condistinct against secret, and particular against public. Whereas general may be kept secret, & particular be made public.  Vt ab omni specie mali abstineatur, & querelis etiam ex falsis suspicionibus provenientibus quoad fieri poterit occurratur, praecipitur nostris omnibus in virtute Sanctae Obedientiae, & sub poena inhabilitatis ad quaevis officia & dignitates, seu praelationes, vocisque etiam activae quàm passivae privationis, ne quispiam publicis & saecularibus Principum negotijs, quae ad rationem Status, ut vocant, pertineant, ulla ratione se immiscere, nec etiam quantumuis requisitus & rogatus, eiusmodires politicas tractandi curam suscipere audeat, vel praesumat.  

(h) Decret. 57 & Can. 17.  Illa autem omnia quae à spirituali Instructione diversa sunt, negotia Status censeri debent, qualia sunt quae ad Principum inter se foedera, vel ad Regnorum iura & successiones pertinent, vel ad bella tam civilia quàm externa.  

(i) In Regulis communibus, Reg. 41.  jubet regula 41. ut saecularia negotia, utpote quae sunt à nostro Instituto aliena, & vehementer à spiritualibus avocant, multùm aversemur.  

(k) In Regulis Concionatorum.  jubentur Concionatores Societatis à reprehensionibus Principum, & Magnatum Reipub. abstinere, & obedientiam erga Principes & Magistratus frequenter, & seriò suis in Concionibus populo commendare.  

(l) In Constitutionibus.  jubent Constitutiones nostrae varijs in locis, ut oremus speciatim pro Principibus, eorumque spirituali saluti praecipuâ curâ procurandae, ac promovendae invigilemus, ob universale bonum, quod ad multos alios qui eorum authoritatem sequuntur, vel per eos reguntur, proveniet.  

(m) In Instructionibus.  Extat denique Instructio pro Confessarijs Principum, quâ Nostris seriò interdicitur, ne occasione huius muneris rebus Politicis, aut Reipublicae gubernationi se immisceant. jubentur etiam hanc Instructionem Principibus ostendere, curareque ut ij planè intelligant, quid Societas ab eo postulat qui Confessarium sibi eligit, neque per Leges nostras licere nobis alijs conditionibus id oneris suscipere.  
I humbly crave pardon for offering so many particulars of our Rule unto your Majesty's perusal, which I should not have done, but out of a most strong desire to give your Majesty 
(n) 
The Minister shapeth this argument into this form: No jesuite observing the Rules of his Order can meddle in state matters. Every jesuit observeth the rules of his Order. Ergo, No jesuit doth meddle in State matters. And then in answer thereof he saith: He that believes the Minor, must be a stranger in the world, and have lived an Anchoret, or Recluse in some Cave, who never heard of Campian, Parsons, Creswell, Garnet, Suarez, Bellarmin, etc. I Answer, This doth show the Innocency of the jesuits, seeing you can bring no examples of their dealing in State-matters, but such as are either ridiculously impertinent, or manifestly false. Was it matter of State, and not of Religion in Bellarmine to write against the English abnegation of the Pope's Authority? Or in Suarez, to write Contra sectam Anglicanam, the English Schism and Heresy? Or in Philopater, to write for the Innocency of Catholic Priests? Or in Mariana, to give instructions about the pious Education of a Christian Prince? In which writings if they hap to err (as Mariana did not by way of assertion, but by way of doubt) doth this prove they dealt in state-matters? The Casuists that writ about matters of Conscience, how fare Kings may proceed without sin and divine offence in waging war, exacting Tribute, and the like state-actions, do they deal in state-matters if perchance they hap to err? What impertinency is this?  
Now also see your falsehood. That Fa. Parsons wrote the book called Dole-man, you cannot prove, and he with oath denied it, naming another secular Gentleman, as Author. That M. Garnet had his anointed fingar in the Gunpowder treason, is so false, as even your Lord Cook did not accuse his Fingers of dealing therein, but only his Ears for hearing thereof in Confession. What Catholic in Christendom, though an Anchoret or Recluse, hath not heard of the singular Innocency & constancy of F. Campian, and of your Heretical barbarity towards him? Cambden in your Protestant History [Elizab. pag. 336.] doth acknowledge, that the Queen (which she would not have done, had she not been well assured of his Innocency) would no ways a long time consent unto his execution. At last, seeing your Ministerial rage against him would not believe her to be truly a Protestant in heart unless she imbrued her hands in his Innocent blood [importunis precibus evicta permisit] being overcome by your importunity, she permitted him to your cruelty (as Pilate did Christ to the jews) to be butchered, with sundry other Priests, [plerosque tamen conscios fuisse non credidit] yet did she not (saith he) believe some of them to be guilty of the treasons you in your malice objected against them.  
And yet if some jesuit should against his Rule meddle in State-matters, is this to be imputed to the Order? Did all the Apostles, and all the Angels keep their Order? Yea, seeing you hold Ministers to be worthy of Religious Adoration [pag. 224.] and therefore more holy and venerable than Angels, I pray you, do they all keep their Orders, Rules & Canons? Yet every man is to be thought to keep the Rules of his Society and Incorporation, until the contrary be clearly proved against him. And when this is proved against some one, that crime is to be taken as the fault of the person, not of the Order. This is the law of common Humanity, and the contrary proceeding of Ministers against jesuits, is Barbarous, and Savage.   satisfaction, against such wrongful aspersions, wherewith Malevolency, and Suspicion laboureth to disgrace us, & to make us odious to them, whom (howsoever disaffected from us) we must perpetually reverence and obey; and of whom under God, our comfort, safety, and the success of our Labours doth principally depend. And when I consider your Majesty's gracious disposition, & excellent maturity, & sharpness of judgement to penetrate assuredly into the depth of affairs, together with our Innocency, whereof our own Conscience is unto us instead of a thousand Witnesses, and which (as we are persuaded) doth in the course of our actions, and whole proceed appear to any that shall unpartially and without passion look into them▪ I cannot despair, but the prayers which for this intent with tears and afflicted hearts we daily pour forth, will at last so much prevail with that Sovereign Governor of the world, 
(o) Cor Regis in manu Domini. Prou. c. 21.1.  in whose hands are the hart● of Princes, that your Majesty may conceive some better opinion of your (without cause so much calumniated) subjects, as to judge of us according as our Constitutions frame us, and our Actions deserve; and not as i● pleaseth disaffection to paint us forth.  
And as your Majesty is a living Monument of that late Paragon of France, Henry the fourth, and of his wisdom and other Princely excellencyes; so why may we not entertain a far off a hopeful thought that your Majesty may one day be better informed against so many malevolent suggestions; and see that they proceed from another origen than our desert, as that famous 
(p) Hear also the Minister formeth the argument after his own stamp, as if the argument were grounded on the temporal prosperity of this King, saying: Your reverence looketh this way: Henry the fourth a wise King was prosperous in his re-intertayning the jesuits. Ergo, the King of great Britain should do well to entertain them. Did not the Minister look asquint on jesuites, he would not have thus wrested the argument awry. The Argument is this: Henry a wise and prudent King, bitterly incensed against jesuits through misinformation, by exact looking into their Institute and course of life, discovered, that only Malevolency void of truth, did vent such accusations against them. Therefore the same may happen, and be hoped of an other as wise and prudent a Prince. Temporal Prosperity, as it doth not ever accompany the friends of jesus, so neither the favourers of jesuits, nor I think the friends of Ministers. The first king in the world that ever loved Minister, was Christerne king of Denmark, a fast friend unto Luther, of whose miseries & misfortunes all histories are full. [Tribus Regnis exutus à suis, & à Successore ●inctus in Clathrata cavea etc. Tursellin. hist. pag. 256.] Can they brag of the prosperity of the Duke of Saxony their first Prince in Germany? of Seyme● their first Prince in England? of james the bastard their first in Scotland? of the Prince of Orange their first in the Low Countries?  Prince did, thereupon restoring the● whom sinister Information had banished whom sinister Information had banished out of his kingdom, for which fact (saith the 
(*) Petrus Mattheus in his History of Henry the fourth of France.  Historiographer of France) he received thankes from all parts of the world, even out of Peru, and Cochin, japon, Goa, and China with presents of some singularities of the Country. I observed (saith the same Author) the pleasure which he took in speaking of that action, and what content he received, when as a great Cardinal told him that by this restoring, his Majesty had gotten two thousand learned pens for his service and perpetual fame. When as the jesuits represented unto him the Catalogue of Colleges, & the thankes of the three Provinces of France, he used these words unto them, which should serve as an Epigraphe upon all their houses: Assurance follows Confidence; I trust in you, assure yourselves of me; with these papers I receive the hearts of all your company, and with the effects I will witness mine unto you. I have always said that they which fear and love God well, cannot but do well, and are always most faithful to their Prince. We are now better informed, I did hold you to be otherwise then you are, and you have found me other than you held me. I would it had been sooner, but there is means to recompense what is past. Love me, and I will love you.  
No labours would we spare, nor any endeavour omit, nor stick to venture the loss of any thing dear unto us (except the grace of God & our eternal salvation) to purchase a small portion of that favour your Majesty's meanest subjects enjoy, that we might in some sort cooperate to the felicity of the Christian world, which (as we are persuaded) doth on your Majesties' person singularly depend.  
For God, rich in mercy and goodness, as he hath made your Majesty partaker of his power & authority in governing this inferior world: so likewise he hath adorned you with many Excellent gifts, as Wisdom, Learning, Authority with foreign Princes, and Common Wealths, made you beloved of your subjects, that on you are cast the eyes of all Christian countries, as on the person whom the Prince of peace, hath beyond the rest enabled, to 
(q) Hear our Replicant shows himself to be according to the Ministerial kind, by railing at the Answerer, & by scorning Peace and unity, saying contemptuously: Forsooth to join together again the parts of Christendom distracted. Deceyvers love to fish in troubled waters. It was Luther's joy to see the world in dissension. tom. 9 Germ. de Comit. Worm. fol. 8. Nihil ita mihi visu iucundum, quàm cùm tumultus & dissenssiones exoriuntur.  join together again the parts of Christendom distracted one from another through Controversies of Religion.  
If the requests of the pretended Reformers were such as the Roman Church might yield unto them, without overthrowing the very foundations of the unity of Faith; if instead of Catholic principles misliked by them, they did propose such other of their own, as she might see some probability▪ or almost possibility of assured continued peace likely to follow upon her yielding in some points; feeling-Compassion (in regard of the wound of discord bleeding in the hart of Christendom) would move her to the uttermost approach towards Protestant's, that the Law of God can permit, though with some disparagement to her Honour.  
But so it is, that those that desire her reformation, be so many for number, and for opinions so divided amongst themselues, that it is impossible she should satisfy all. 
(r) 
The Minister against this clear & convincing discourse of the Answerer, comes forth with this syllogism set down in a distinct letter, each proposition in a distinct line very majestically. Whosoever abideth in error, aught to reform.  
The Roman Church abideth in error. Ergo,  
The Roman Church ought to reform.  
The Assumption (saith he) is manifest by the repugnancyes of the Roman doctrine with holy Scripture.  
Is not this most ridiculous? Against him I oppose this Syllogism. The Minister forced by truth, doth acknowledge that by Theology which he calls sophistry, we give seeming solutions unto their arguments out of Scripture. pag. 581. But Arguments unto which seeming solutions are given, be not manifest. Ergo, Protestants have no manifest arguments to prove our Religion to be against Scripture, and so without ground break the peace of Christendom.   Their conditions of peace are, that she reform herself, by forsaking definitions of General Counsels, Customs, Doctrines universally received for many ages, time out of mind confessedly without any known beginning since the Apostles. Instead of these means (so potent to stay staggering Consciences, and to keep the Christian world in peace) they present her with the Scripture, understood 
(s) The Minister here very impudently denies that Protestants resolve by private illumination; whereas himself more than twenty times in this Reply, doth teach that each Protestant doth last resolve by divine illumination, whereby he seethe manifestly the resplendent verity of things believed, as will appear afterward.  by private illumination, the source of discord, from which an Ocean of strife must needs flow. These things considered your most judicious Majesty cannot but see, that her yielding would not compose debates already begun, but rather open a wide gap unto innumerable new brawls, & bring them into Kingdoms hitherto with such dissension untouched.  
Wherefore there being no possibility that the Catholic part could gain peace to Christendom by any yielding unto our adversary's either reasonable, or unreasonable; whither should lovers of Concord turn themselves but unto your Gracious Majesty, that have in your power the affections of Protestants, and therefore would be the 
(t) Hear the Minister raileth venting new scolding Phrases, Gross errors, and the sharking rapine of the Romish Harpies, trampling God's truth, and God's people under the foot of the inerrable, and uncontrollable Grand Seigneur, of the seaven-hilled-citty, lewd Superstition, Roman tyranny: terming the Answerer impudent, bold, frantic, guided by an evil Genius, & the like, only for motioning unto his Majesty the means of the reunion of Christendom, and for his conceiving some possibility to give satisfaction which his majesty himself doth allow that we should conceive as possible, saying; Except she reform herself, or else be ABLE to give me satisfaction.  fittest instrument for their Reunion with the Roman Church. The God of Charity hath put into your Majesty's hart a desire of unity of the Church, and into your hand an Olive-bough. Crown of peace, to set it on the head of Christendom, which weary of endless contention poureth forth unto your Majesty her suppliant Complaint; Quem das finem (Rex Magne) laborum? And seeing nothing hindereth, but that yourself are not yet satisfied in some Doctrines of the Roman church, particularly in the Nine points your Majesty hath set down in writing, I humbly present unto your Majesty these my poor labours for your satisfaction, so much desired of the Christian world.   

That the Roman Church is the only true Church.  
AND to the end, that this my Answer may be in itself more solid, and better accepted off by your Majesty, before I descend unto particulars I think best first to show in general the Roman to be the only true Church, for this was the occasion and subject of the Conference between Doctor White and me, and is the 
(a) Because the Minister here cavilleth; note that doctrine of Faith may be most important two ways. First, as a truth which is essentially the object of supernatural affection, as of Hope, charity, contrition, without which no man is saved. In this kind the Incarnation of the Son of God is most important. Secondly, as the principle, and means by which the said truth is proposed, without which the same cannot ordinarily be known. In this kind, most important it is to know the true Church.  most important and mainest point of Controversy, in which all other are involved, and by the decision thereof resolved; the Church 
(b) 2. Tim. 3.15. Math. 16. Isa. c. 2. v. 3. Dan. c. 2. v. 35.  being the Pillar and Foundation of truth; the eminent Rock, and Mountain filling the whole world; on the top whereof standeth the Tradition of saving doctrine, conspicuous, and immoveable. If this Church be overthrown, the total certainty of Christianity cannot but with it together fall to the ground: if it be hidden, & made invisible, men must needs wander in the search of the first delivered Christian doctrine, without end, or hope of ever arriving at any certain issue. And if this Controversy be not examined and determined in the first place, disputation by 
(c) Non ad Scripturas provocandum, nec in ijs constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla, aut parùm certa victoria. Tertull. in praescrip. c. 19  Scripture will prove fruitless, by the sole evidency whereof no victory can be gotten against proteruious error, or at lest no victory that is very 
(d) The Minister (pag. 8.) saith that by the Church apparent victory cannot begotten more than by the Scripture, which is false. For apparent victory is that whereby men are forced to yield, or else to disclaim from the authority of the judge. If the true Church be found out, and made judge, men may be forced by her sentence to yield unto truth, or else to disclaim from the judge: which yet we see is not done by the Scripture. For men that allow the same Scripture to be judge, neither are forced to yield unto truth nor to appeal from the Scripture: yea saith Luther Tom. 2. Witt. in Contion. Domin. octavae post Trinit. fol. 118. Never any Heresy was so pestilent or foolish, that did not cover itself with the veil of Scripture.  apparent: neither will answers about particular Doctrines easily satisfy a mind preoccupyed with a long continued dislike of them.  
BECAUSE the Minister hath repeated sundry false Principles, and moved many doubts about the Resolution of Faith, declared in the two ensuing Grounds of the jesuits Answer: Because also this Controversy is the ground of the rest, by which they are finally resolved; and except it be cleared in the first place, Heresy will be still hiding itself in the obscurity thereof; Hence I have thought necessary, in this very Entry to superadd, and prefix this ensuing Treatise.   

A SHORT TREATISE CONCERNING THE RESOLUTION OF FAITH, For the more full clearing of the ensuing Controversies, about Tradition, Scripture, & the Church.  
THIS Treatise is divided into two Parts. In the first I will set down, and refute the Protestant form of Resolution. In the second declare and prove the Catholic.  


The Protestant Resolution of Faith declared. §. 1.  
PROTESTANTS perceive, that if they pretend to believe Christian Religion without seeing the truth thereof, upon the sole authority of God revealing, they must consequently believe that God revealed it upon the word and authority of the Apostles, who preached the same to the world as doctrine unto them revealed of God, & then again, that the Apostles did thus preach, & publish it by 
(d) Quid Apostoli praedicaverint praescribam, non aliter probari debere, quàm per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt. Tertull. de praescrip. c. 19  the light of the Church succeeding them, delivering it hand to hand as from them; which Tradition if they admit as a certain & infallible rule, they are 
(e) To this purpose they say: So long as we stay upon the Fathers, we shall still continue in our old (Popish) errors. Peter Martyr. de votis pag. 476. Luther de ser●uo Arbitrio. Tom. 2. Wittenberg. pag. 434. Pomeran. in jonam. Napier upon the revelations, Calius Curio & alij.  brought into straits, and mightily pressed to receive many doctrines of Tradition, which they are now resolute never to believe.  
Therefore to lay the axe to the root they would fain build their faith on an higher ground than the authority of God darkly revealing, to wit 
(f) john White defence pag. 309. None can believe except God illuminate their hearts, but such as have this illumination do SEE MANIFESTLY the truth of things believed.  on Divine illumination, whereby they see manifestly the truth of things believed: whereby they are 
(g) Francis White Orthodox, pag. 108. adding, that Protestants herein are like to a man that sees a fare off an obscure glimmering, but coming to the place, beholds the light itself. And the same is taught by Caluin, Institut. l. 1. c. 7. n. 2. and the rest.  convicted in conscience by the evidence of the thing itself, that their Religion is Divine: by the lustre, and resplendent verity of the matter of Scripture, and majesty of the doctrine thereof, sensed according unto their manner.   

The former Resolution confuted by six Arguments. §. 2.  
THis pretence of Resolution so much 
(h) Pag. 19 lin. 4. & pag. 28. lin. 3. & ibid. lin. 28. & pag. 68 lin. 20. The Majesty and lustre of Heavenly doctrine is such, as it appears illustrious though propounded by mean and obscure persons, as a rich jewel doth manifest his own worth.  repeated by our Minister in this Reply, is refelled by 6. arguments as being extremely arrogant, ignorant, disorderly, fond, desperate, the devise of Satan.  

The first Argument.  
First, what more Arrogant then to challenge ordinary illuminations more high, rare, and excellent than the Apostles had? The Apostles, though they had this privilege that Christian Religion was to them immediately revealed of God, yet did they not see the resplendent verity & shi●ing truth of the Doctrine thereof, but saw darkly, believing what they did not see, as S. Paul doth 
(i) 1. Cor. 13.12. Videmus nunc in speculo in aenigmate: we see through a glass darkly, that is, we be sure, by believing God's word of what we do not see.  testify. Therefore illumination showing manifestly the truth of things believed, challenged by Protestants, is more high, rare, and excellent light, then that the Apostles had, what greater 
(k) Innumerabiles sunt qui se Videntes non solùm iactant, sed & à Christo illuminatos videri volunt. Sunt autem haeretici Augustin. tract. 43. in joan.  arrogancy? Swenkfeldians equal themselves unto the Apostles, pretending immediate revelation and teaching from God, such as the Apostles had; but Protestants pretending to see manifestly the truth of things believed, equal themselves unto the Blessed, whose happiness is to see 
(l) Fides est credere quod nondum vides, cuius Fidei merces est videre quod credis. Augustin. de verb. Apostol. Serm. 29.  what we believe; specially seeing one point of the doctrine Protestants pretend to see, is the blessed Trinity, the true light and resplendent verity whereof a man cannot see manifestly without being blessed.   

The second Argument.  
Secondly, what greater Ignorance against the Rudiments of Christian Religion, then to resolve Christian faith by the evidence and resplendent verity of the doctrine, & matter, and of things believed? What is Divine faith but to believe things we do 
(m) Argumentum non apparentium. Hebr. 11.1. Fide credimus ea quae non videmus. Aug. de Gen. ad lit. l. 12. c. 31. Et Enchirid. c. 8. Fides quam divina eloquia docent, est earum rerum quae non videntur.  not see, upon the word of God revealing them, whom we know to be worthy of all credit? so that howsoever some learned men may otherwise see some doctrines revealed by the light of reason, yet never by the light of faith: for faith is that virtue, whereby we 
(n) Fides inchoat meritum. Aug. l. 1. retrac. c. 23. Et epist. 106. Fides meretur gratiam bene operandi.  merit and please God, by showing reverence to his word; but what merit, or God-a-mercy is it to believe what we see manifestly 
(o) Augustin. tract. 79. in joan. Laus fidei est si quod creditur non videtur. & Gregor. hom. 26. in Euang. Cyprian. Serm. de Natiu. Christi, Haec fides non habet meritum.  convicted by the evidence thereof? What pious affection to God's word doth a man show by seeing it to be the truth?   

The third Argument.  
Thirdly, it is extremest Disorder, as S. Augustine saith 
(p) August. de utilit. credendi c. 14. Pri●s videre velle ut animum purges, perversum atque prae posterum est.  first to see that we may believe; whereas we ought first firmly to believe what we do not see, that so we may 
(q) See this Minister's reply pag. 16. The matter and form of the Books show themselves to be Divine.  merit to see what we have believed. But Protestants pretend first to see the resplendent verity of Scriptures doctrine, thence concluding 
(q) See this Minister's reply pag. 16. The matter and form of the Books show themselves to be Divine.  that the Scripture being so high, and divine truth, as they, forsooth, see it to be, cannot but be revealed of God; and if 
(r) If Divine then Apostolical. Reply pag. 19  revealed of God, then preached by the Apostles; if preached by the Apostles, than the full public tradition of the Church in all subsequent ages, 
(s) Pag. 105. the Minister saith; If we can demonstrate we maintain the Religion which the holy Apostles taught this alone is sufficient to prove we are the true Church, though we could not nominate any visible Church of our Religion out of History.  though the Preachers & Professors thereof were never seen, nor can be named. Thus disorderly they place the Cart before the Horse: they know that their Religion is supernatural truth, before they be sure that it is either the doctrine of the Church, or of the Apostles, or of God.   

The fourth Argument.  
Fourthly, it is great blindness, and 
(t) Field appendix part. 2. pag. 20. doth acknowledge, that they who see not this light of Scripture, and yet pretend it, must be brain, sick and frantic.  want of common sense for men that digladiate amongst themselves about Scripture, and the doctrine thereof, which is divine and heavenly, and which not; to pretend that they are enabled by the spirit to discern heavenly writings, doctrines, and senses from humane, by the evidence of the thing, as easily as men distinguish light from darkness, honey from gall. Protestants disagree and contend bitterly about the very Scriptures they daily peruse, see, and behold, which text and sense is divine and heavenly, which not▪ as (to omit many other Examples) about 
(t) Luther praefat. in Epist. jacobi edit. jenensi. Chemnitius Enchyrid. pag. 63. The Epistle of james, the second of Peter, the second and third of john, the Epistle of jude, the Apocalyps of john are Apocryphal.  the Epistle of james, and about the sense of these words, This is my body; and yet they 
(u) john White saith, they know the senses of Scriptures to be divine by their own light shining, and by their own showing itself in them, as sweetness is known by it own taste. Caluin lib. 1. Institut. c. 7. §. 2. in fine. Non obscuriorem veritatis suae seipsum scriptura vlt●ò praese fert, quàm coloris suires albae & nigrae, saporis res suaves & amarae.  challenge resolution in these matters by the light of the spirit, making them to see manifestly the truth of the thing, and to discern true scripture in text and sense from false, as easily as the light of the Sun, from darkness: what can be more fond and ridiculous?   

The fifth Argument.  
Fifthly, if no man be saved without divine and supernatural faith, and if supernatural faith be resolved not by the authority of the Church of God, but by the resplendent verity of the Doctrine, what hope of salvation can wise and prudent men expect in the Protestant Church? Without divine illumination, making them to see the truth of things believed, they cannot have supernatural faith, nor be saved, if Protestants say true. Wise & prudent men cannot be so fond, as to believe that they see manifestly the truth of the things they believe by Christian faith, as the truth of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the Real presence, of the Resurrection of the dead, and other like articles believed: What 
(x) Protestants are forced by this argument to contradict themselves. For, sometimes they teach, that faith builded on the authority of the Church, is but human, and acquisite, not sufficient unto Salvation. Thus our Minister pag. 14. And yet at other times, they teach that Novices and weaklings have faith sufficient unto salvation whose saith is built upon the authority of the Church: this also is taught▪ by the Minister pag. 22. saying: Novices in faith ground their historical faith upon the authority of the Church.  then can they expect, but most certain damnation in the Protestant Church, if this Protestant way to resolve supernatural faith, be the truth?   

The sixth Argument.  
Finally, no devise more proper of Satan to entrap simple souls, than the promise of clear and manifest Truth; this being the very 
(y) Timeo, ne sicut Serpens Hevam seduxit astutiâ suâ, ita corrumpantur sensus vestri & excidant simplicitate quae est in Christo. 2. Cor. 11.3.  means of delusion, whereby he deceyued our first parent Eve, and 
(z) Gen. 3.4.  won her to taste the forbidden fruit▪ for what more grateful unto men that groan under the 
(a) Augustin. de vtil. cred. c. 9 Vera Religio sine quodam gravi authoritatis imperio iniri rectè nullo pacto potest.  yoke of Christian authority, pressing them to believe what they do not see, them this 
(b) Haeretici non se iugum credendi imponere, sed docendi fontem aperire gloriantur. Augustin. Ibid.  promise of Heresy, Fellow us & you shall be like unto God seeing the truth, you shall by following us not darkly believe, but know good from bad, truth from falsehood in matters of Religion, by evidence & resplendent verity of the thing? With these promises saith S. Augustine 
(c) Quâ promissâ anim● naturaliter gaudet humana, & sanorum escas appetendo, irruit in v●nena fallentium. Augustin. Ibid.  the souls of men are naturally ouerioyed, & whilst they gape after the promised sight of divine truth whereof as yet they be not capable, the cozening promisers cast into their mouth, & make them devour the poisoned morsels of their falsehood.    

Concerning the light of Scripture. §. 3.  
CONCERNING the light of Scripture, two things are evident. First some arguments of probability may be drawn from the Scriptures, to prove they are of God, which serve for the comfort of Believers, and may somewhat incline Infidels to believe upon other greater motives, to wit the authority of God & his Church. This probable evidence, & evident probability is all which the testimonies of Schoolmen brought by the Minister, affirm.  
Secondly, the Scripture hath not light to show itself with evident certainty, to be the word of God, but is believed to be such without being seen, as much as any other point and mystery of faith, to wit, upon the word of God so revealing delivered by tradition.  
This is demonstrated, because to be the word of God and the rule of faith, is to be true and certain, not only in some part● but also in all, & every part & particle thereof, so that, as saith our 
(e) Pag. 16. lin. 2.  Minister, no liar can speak therein: and if 
(f) Augustin. epist. 9 Si ad scripturas admittatur mendacium, quid eis authoritatis remanebit?  one sentence of Scripture be proved false, the credit of the whole is lost. But it is impossible that any man should know by the light & evidence of the sense and doctrine of Scripture, that the Scripture according to every book & chapter, leaf and line, is certain and assured truth, and that no lie or falsehood is contained therein, as these seven Arguments evince.  

The first Argument.  
First, because the 
(g) Hieron. epist. ad Aug. 19 inter epist. Aug. Scripturae obscurissimae sunt. Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Origen. lib. 7. contra Celsum. Reverà multis locis obscurae. Vide Bellarm. de Script. l. 3. c. 1.  Fathers teach, and 
(h) Field. Church l. 4. c. 15. No question but there be manifold obscurityes in Scripture.  Protestants, even our 
(i) Reply pag. 35.  Minister, acknowledge, that there be many dark and obscure passages of Scripture; that the Scripture is full of innumerable difficultyes; that sometimes one 
(k) Quid vel falsò suspicentur non inveniunt. Aug. l. 2. de doctr. Christ. c. ●. Whitaker. de Eccles. pag. 220. Quaedam loca de quibus nihil certo statui potest.  can hardly so much as give a probable guess at their meaning: but these texts and places cannot be known to contain divine truth & no falsehood by the evidence of the doctrine▪ Therefore we cannot know the Scripture to be the word of God, that is, nothing but truth, by the evidence of the doctrine. Hence appeareth, that Protestants teaching that ●he Scripture is known to be the word of God, and that no lie is contained therein by the evidence and light of the doctrine, contradict themselves in saying, that in many places it is difficile and dark, as they cannot assuredly understand it. For how can they know by the light of the sense, or doctrine, that the texts not understood contain nothing but truth?   

The second Argument.  
Secondly the Scriptures are pretended to be known by the majesty 
(l) Reply pag. 16. Internal matter & majesty of the books. Item pag. 30. & 68 Field. appendix. 34. Caluin. Instit. l. 1. c. 7.  & purity of the doctrine, but though some mysteries of the Scriptures carry a majesty in respect of natural reason, and a show of sublimity above it, as the Blessed Trinity; yet 
(m) Sunt quaedam in sacris litteris quae quia suboffendunt animos ignaros & negligentes sui (quae maxima turba) populariter accusari, defendi autem populariter propter mysteria quae in illis continentur, non à multis admodum possunt. Aug. de vtil. cred. c. 1.  other points of Scripture seem unto reason ridiculous and childish: As that the serpent did speak to the woman; that Adam and Eve were naked without perceiving themselves to be so; that there was day and night before the sun was created, & the like. Therefore we must have some other & surer ground than this majesty of the doctrine, to be certain that the Scripture is nothing but truth, & Gods infallible word.   

The third Argument.  
Thirdly, whereas the 
(n) Reply pag. 19  Minister much urgeth the harmony of Scripture, to prove the same to be of God. Though this harmony appear in diverse things, yet who doth not know, that innumerable seeming contradictions are objected against Scripture, 
(o) This is evident unto all that have read the commentaries of the Fathers.  many of which are only probably answered by the Fathers, many answered by things assumed without proof, only because otherwise we must admit contradiction in Scripture, 
(p) This appeareth particularly in the four first chapters of Genesis, and in the Genealogy of our Saviour. And in concording the Chronologyes of the Book of Kings.  some places not fully answered, but the Fathers were forced to fly from literal unto allegorical senses: how then could the ancient Fathers know the harmony of Scripture by the evidence of the thing, & thereon ground their faith, that the Scripture is of God? Or if they could, not how can we? For what the Minister boastingly affirmeth 
(q) Reply pag. 24. lin. 15.  of himself and his fellows, we find at this day a perfect harmony of all the parts of the Gospel among themselves, and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament: This Ministerial brag, I say, of their finding the harmony of all Scriptures at this day, above all the Ancients, by the evidence of the thing, is incredible: for men cannot be more sure of the perfect harmony of Scriptures, than they are sure that all contradictions laid to the charge of Scripture, have true solutions. But no man living ever was, or is sure by evidence, that all the solutions and answers used to reconcile Scriptures, be the truth, no not Protestant's. For did they understand assuredly every text of Scripture and every seeming contradiction is reconciled, could there be amongst them such different and adverse exposition of Scripture? Therefore no man ever did, or doth know the perfect harmony of all Scriptures by the evidence of the thing, nor consequently the Scripture to be of God, by the evidence of this harmony.   

The fourth Argument.  
Fourthly, whereas the Minister pretends the Scripture to be known by the style affirming, that seeing God hath bestowed tongues and voices on men by which they may be known, the jesuite cannot persuade any reasonable man that God so speaketh in Scripture as men elevated by grace cannot discern the same to be his voice and word. This is spoken with more confidence than consideration. God hath an 
(s) joan. 1.  Eternal Increate manner of speaking, to wit, the production of the Eternal Word, by which the Blessed discern him from all other speakers, by the evidence of blissful learning; but no created manner of speaking 
(t) This is also true when God speaketh inwardly to the soul. For in that speaking he useth the native intellectual tongue, that is, the understanding Faculty of the soul, his divine inspirations being apprehensions of understanding of the will and affections. Hence this inward speaking is not by the mere sound known to be Divine, but by the conjecture of some effects, or by special revelation.  is so proper to God, as it can be known to be his speaking by the mere sound of the voice, without special revelation, or else some consequent miraculous effect. Which I declare and prove by this argument. If there were a man that had no proper sound and accent of voice, but could, and did exactly use the voice of every man as he pleased; this man could not be known by his voice. Likewise if a man had no proper style in writing, but could perfectly write the style of any author as he should think good; he could not be known from other writers by his phrase. But God hath no proper external sound or accent of voice, nor any proper style or phrase in writing, but useth the prope● tongue of those men, whom it pleaseth him to inspire, folding up his heavenly conceits in the Prophet's natural language, whence ariseth 
(u) The difference of style betwixt the Apocalyps and the Gospel of S. john is noted by Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Euseb. l. 7. c. 10. And Caluin Institut. l. 1. c. 8. noteth variety of style amongst the Evangelists & Prophets: Davidi & Isaiae ●ucunda & suavis fluit oratio: Apud Amos Pastorem jeremiam & Zacharian asperior sermorusticitatem sapit.  such difference of styles amongst the sacred writers. So that it is great want of discretion to think to know a book to be of God by the style, abstracting from the matter.  
Now the matter is such as it doth not with evidence certainly show itself to be nothing but truth, as hath been proved. Learned men, as hath been said, may from within Scripture gather arguments that probably persuade that the same is the word of God, but evident probability cannot be the ground of persuasion certain and inevident; it may be a comfortable confirmation, not an assured foundation of Faith.   

The fifth Argument.  
If Scriptures be not clear and evident but only to such as have the light and faculty of faith, they cannot be the prime principles of Faith, evident in themselves, & not proved by the principles of faith. This is clear, because every faculty supposeth her principles, & by the light of them which the student brings with him, she showeth truths pertinent unto her skill that were hidden. But the Scriptures are not clear and evident, but to such only as have aforehand the light and faculty of faith, yea they be dark & obscure unto Infidels, as not only the 
(x) Verbum eius infidelibus nox est. Hilarius in cap. 10. Matth. 2. Caluin l. 1. justit. c. 8. n. 9  Fathers teach, but also Protestants grant. Therefore the Scriptures be not the prime principles of faith supposed before faith, which Infidels seeing to be true, resolve to believe the mysteries of Faith; but only are secondary truths dark and obscure in themselves, believed upon the prime principles of faith.   

The sixth Argument.  
Hence ariseth the sixth argument which is à priori. If Scriptures may be proved by the light of a superior principle of Faith, they are not the prime principles of saith evident in themselves and indemonstrable. But Scripture is proved by a superior & more evident principle of faith. For the doctrine of the Scripture is proved to be true, because God the prime verity author of Scripture cannot deceive, nor be deceived. Now, that prime verity cannot deceive nor be deceived is a principle of faith superior and more evident than that the Scriptures be of God and divine. Therefore Scripture is not the supreme indemonstrable principle of Faith, but is proved to be truth by the authority of God revealing it; to be of God by the miracles of the Apostles publishing it; to be the Apostles by the tradition of the Church, delivering it as such; even as all as other mysteries of Faith are proved.   

The seaventh Argument.  
Finally Protestant's for this their fancy of final resolution of faith by the resplendent verity of the doctrine, have not any argument worth a rush. Their chief Argument are two. First, Scripture is a principle of faith; but principles are to be evident in themselves, and to be known by their own light. This argument (much & often urged by you, & your 
(a) Way pag. 37. Defence cap. 20.  Brother) is silly, because all principles must not be evident in themselues, but only the first & prime principles of every faculty or hability of knowledge, as all know. But Scriptures are not (as hath been showed) the prime principles of faith, but are secondary principles, which being known, we by the light of them may know many other things.  
The second argument. 
(b) This argument is urged by the Minister pag. 16. and often elsewhere.  The Scripture is light, for the word of God is light, and Scripture is the word of God. But every light is evident in itself, and known by the evidence it hath in itself. Therefore the Scriptures must of themselves appear● and show that they are divine truth. I Answer, the Minor of this Argument is false, & the whole argument grounded upon ignorance, in not discerning a difference betwixt corporal & spiritual light. True it is, that every corporal light that doth enlighten the eye of body must be evident in itself & primely & originally clear, but not so every truth that illustrates man's understanding. The reason is, because the eye of body cannot by things seen, infer & conclude things that are hidden, but only can apprehended what doth directly and immediately show itself. But man's Understanding not only apprehends what showeth itself, but by things known inferreth & breedeth in itself knowledge of things hidden.  
Hence unto Understanding, though things showing themselves directly, and by their own light, be her prime principles, and means to know other things; yet also things hidden in themselves being formerly known by the light of authority, may thereby become lights, that is, means to know yet further of things hidden. So that speaking of spiritual and intellectual lights, it is false that all lights enlightening man's Understanding to know other things, are evident in themselves; yea some secondary Principles and Lights there are, which must be showed by superior light, before they become lights. In which kind is the Scripture, being a Light unto the faithful, because known by the Churches perpetual Tradition to be from the Apostles, by the Apostles miraculous authority to be of God, by God's supreme Verity who cannot deceive, nor be deceived, to be the truth.     

THE SECOND PART. About the Catholic Resolution of Faith.  
NO doubt but that to the end a man may believe, divine inward illumination anointing his hart is necessary. The question is, what is the external infallible ground unto which Divine inspiration moveth men to adhere, that they may be settled in the true saving faith? The answer in few words is this. The Resolution of true Religion is firmly assured about four Principles, against four Enemies, by four Perfections belonging unto God, as he is Prima veritas, Prime and Infinite Verity, that cannot deceive, nor be deceived. This I declare and prove.  

The first Principle proved. §. 1.  
THE first Enemy of true Christian Religion is the Pagan, 
(a) Dicunt pagani, Ben● vivimus.  or Profane 
(b) Fuerunt Philosophi de virtutibus & vitijs sublimia multa tractantes. Aug. Tract. 45. in joan.  Philosopher, who is persuaded he may attain unto perfect felicity and Sanctity by the knowledge of sole natural truth. Against this enemy is the first principle of true Christian Religion, The Doctrine of Salvation, is that only which was revealed of God unto his Prophets. About this Principle true believers are resolved by a perfection which in the first place belongs unto God as he is Prime & Infinite verity, to wit, that he cannot lie nor reveal any untruth when he speaks immediately himself by secret inspiration. Hence we thus resolve. God the Prime verity cannot reveal untruth, specially about the State-matters of salvation when he speaks by secret inspiration immediately himself. But he revealed in this manner by inspiration unto his Prophets, that men cannot serve him truly, nor be saved without knowing supernatural truths beyond the 
(c) As man's felicity, the blissful vision of God, is above the forces of Nature: so it was convenient God should bring him unto it by believing truth above the reach of his reason.  reach of Reason, which truths in particular he revealed unto them. Therefore the doctrine of salvation is supernatural truth, such as was revealed of God unto his Prophets and others, whom he did vouchsafe to teach immediately by himself, and send them to be the teachers of the world.  
This the prime and highest principle of Christian resolution Protestants not in express words, but in deeds, and by consequence, reject from being the stay of their faith. For as they that believe the doctrine of Aristotle lastly and finally by the light and evidence thereof, because it showeth itself to be conformable to reason, do not build upon the authority of Aristotle, nor upon his bare world; even so they that believe the doctrine of Scripture by the light & resplendent verity thereof, because it shows itself to be divine and heavenly truth, as Protestants pretend to do, do not build upon the authority of God the author and doctor of Scripture, nor his bare, mere, & pure word. This is most evident for who doth not see that it is one thing to believe the word of some Doctor by the light of the doctrine, and another to believe his word through reverence unto his authority, as knowing him to be infallible in his word? Hence the Protestant faith is so independent of the authority of God, as though God were not prime verity, but fallible in his words, yet their faith might subsist as now it doth. This is clear, because let one be never so fallible and false, yet when his sayings show themselves to be true, we may (yea we cannot but) believe his word, in respect of the resplendent verity thereof. But Protestants pretend that the sayings of Scripture show themselves to be true by the light & lustre of the Doctrine believed therein, & upon this resplendent verity they build lastly their faith: Therefore though God were fallible, & might be false, yet their faith, that his Scripture is truth, which showeth itself to be truth by the resplendent verity of the doctrine, might subsist. Is this the true Christian faith which depends not upon Gods being the Prime and Infallible Verity? which gives no more credit unto God▪ than men will give unto a liar, to wit, to believe him so fare as they see him? To credit the word of his teaching so fare as it showeth itself to be truth by the light of the doctrine? Verily this form of Faiths resolution is gross and unchristian, which I am persuaded Protestants would not maintain, did they well understand what they say, or could they find some other way of Resolution, whereby they might know what doctrine is the Apostles, and therefore Gods, without being bound to rely upon the Tradition of the Church.   

The second Principle demonstrated. §. 2.  
SOME will say, God is prime Verity, by whose word we cannot be deceived: But how prou● you these pretended divine revelations to be truly such? Here comes in the second enemy of true Religion, who following his blind passion labours to deprive the world of the proofs of divine revelations that are more evident than the Sun. This Enemy is the jew, who granting the doctrine of salvation to be supernatural truth revealed of God, denies the revealed doctrine of God to be Apostolical, that is, the doctrine which the Apostles preached to the whole world as the doctrine of salvation. Against this Enemy is the second Principle of true Religion, The Doctrine of salvation revealed of God is no other, but Apostolical, that is, which the Apostles published to the world. About this principle true believers are resolved by a second perfection of the prime Verity, which is, That he cannot with his seal, that is with miracles and works proper to himself, warrant or subsigne falsehood, devised or vented by any man. Hence we make this resolution. God being Infinite verity cannot by sign and miracle testify falsehood devised and vented by men: God hath by manifest miracles testified the doctrine of the Apostles to be his word and message: Ergo, the same is not a false religion invented of men, but the doctrine of Salvation revealed of God.  
The miracles by which the Prime verity hath given testimony unto the Apostles doctrine may be reduced unto four heads. First the miraculous predictions of the Prophets, most clearly & punctually fulfiled in Christ jesus, his B. Mother, his Apostles, his Church. Secondly, the miraculous works in all kinds which Christ jesus, and his disciples have wrought, which are so many, so manifest, so wonderful & above nature, as we cannot desire greater evidences. Thirdly, the miraculous conversion of the world, by twelve poor unlearned Fishermen, the world (I say) which then was in the flower of human pride & glory, in the height of human erudition and learning bringing them to believe a doctrine seemingly absurd in reason, to follow a course of discipline truly repugnant unto sensuality, to embrace a way of salvation so contemptible in the eye of men, that verily, the work of the world's creation doth not more clearly discover God the Author of Nature, than this of the world's Conversion doth show itself to proceed from the Author of grace. Fourthly, the miraculous continuance of a Christian Catholic Church, spread over the world, foretold by our Saviour, notwithstanding so many persecusecutions by the jews, Heathens, Heretics, Politicians, and dissolute Christians.  
Against this Principle of Resolution, Ministers 
(d) Chalenour in his Credo Ecclesiam Catholicam. p. 1. c. 6. Field l. 3. cap. 15.  and our Minister 
(e) Reply pag. ●16. citing  in particular, object, that miracles are only probable, & not sufficient testimonies of divine doctrine, yea 
(f) Bellarm. l. 4. de Eccl. cap. 14.  Bellarmine saith, we cannot know evidently that miracles are true, for if we did, we should know evidently that our faith is true, & so it should not be faith. I Answer, that such evidence as doth exclude the necessity of pious reverence, & affection unto God's word, evidence I say, enforcing men to believe, cannot stand with true faith. If we knew by Mathematical or Metaphysical evidence that the miracles of Christ, and his Apostles were true, perchance this evidence would compel men to believe, and overcome the natural obscurity and seeming impossibility of the Christian doctrine. And therefore, as Bellarmine saith, we cannot be mathematically and altogether infallibly sure by the light of nature, that miracles are true.  
Notwithstanding we must not deny what Scriptures affirm, 
(g) joan. 5● 36.  that miracles are a sufficient testimony binding men to believe, and consequently that we may know them to be true, 
(h) Suarez de fide disput. 4. sect. 3. n. 9 Videntibus constare poterat evidentia naturali vera esse quae agebantur.  by Physical evidence, as we are sure of things we see with our eyes, or of such as being once evident to the world, are by the world's full report declared unto us. Neither doth this Physical evidence of miracles take away the merit of Faith. The reason is, because this evidence not being altogether, and in the highest de●ree infallible by itself (for our senses may sometimes be deceived) is not sufficient to overcome the natural obscurity, darkness, & seeming falsehood of things to be believed, upon the testimony of those miracles. For the mystery of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the Real Presence, and the like seem to reason as impossible, as any miracle can seem evident unto sense. Hence when faith is proposed by miracles, ariseth a conflict betwixt the seeming evidence of the miracles, and the seeming darkness and falsehood of the Christian doctrine. Against which obscurity a man cannot get the victory by the sole evidence of miracles, except he be inwardly helped by the light of God's spirit, moving him by pious affection to cleave to the doctrine which is by so clear testimonies proved his word. As a man shut up in ● chamber with two lights, whereof the one maketh ●he wall seem white, the other blew, cannot be firmly resolved what to think till day light enter, & obscuring both those lights, discover the truth: Even so a man looking upon Christian doctrines, by the light of Christian miracles done to prove them, will be moved to judge them to be truth; but looking upon ●hem through the evidence of their seeming impossibilities unto reason, they will seem false: nor will he be able firmly to resolve for the side of faith, until the light of divine grace enter into his hart, making him to prefer through pious reverence towards God, the so proposed authority of his word, before the seeming impossibility of man's reason.   

The third Principle demonstrated. §. 3.  
BEING resolved that the doctrine of God is saving truth, & the Apostles doctrine the doctrine of God, we meet with a third Enemy who labours to drive us out of the beaten high way, to know what doctrine is the Apostles. This Enemy is the Heretic, a domestic Enemy, and therefore more dangerous. These men grant the doctrine of Salvation to be supernatural and revealed, the revealed to be the Apostolical, and no other; but they will have the rule of knowing what doctrine the Apostles taught to be special illumination of the spirit, not Catholic Tradition. For there is a double kind of Tradition from the Apostles, that may be pretended. The one public, by the uniform perpetual teaching of Pastors. The other secret by the teaching of some private men, pretending to have been taught more singularly and highly, than other men by the Apostles. The second kind of Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles, by the secret teaching of an invisible Church, Heretics have pretended, but never the first of public and Catholic Tradition.  
The cause why Heretics prescribe the course to resolve by illuminations, is, because an Heretic will not admit doctrines delivered unto him by the consent of his Christian Ancestors, but with choice receive some, and reject others, as he findeth good. Whence he hath the 
(d) Tertull. de prescript. cap. 6. Haereses dictae Graeca voce exinterpretatione Electionis.  Name Heretic, that is, one who is his own carver, and chooser in matters of Religion, still 
(e) Augustin. l. 7. de Gen. ad lit. c. 9 Neque enim non omnes Haeretici Scripturas Catholicas legunt.  pretending for all his fancies Scripture, understood by the light of the spirit▪ If Catholic Tradition were by him admitted, as a rule infallible to know what doctrine the Apostles preached, he could not have liberty to choose according to his best liking, but would be bound 
(f) Nobis nostro arbitrio non licet indulgere, sed ꝗ Apostoli fideliter consignarunt accipere.  to receive the form of Religion, made unto him by Tradition of Ancestors. Hence, against this way of Catholic Tradition he bandeth with might and main, charging the same to be fallible, that errors may secretly creep into it, teaching men to retire unto the inward teaching of the spirit, as the only secure means to know which be the Apostolical Scriptures, which the Apostolical interpretation of them.  
Against this Enemy is the third principle of true Christian Religion, The Apostolical doctrine is the Catholic, to wit, the doctrine that is delivered from the Apostles by the Tradition of whole Christian worlds of Fathers, unto whole Christian worlds of Children, that in matters of Christian Religion, Heresy, that is, private election and choice may have no place. About this principle, faith is resolved and assured by a third perfection belonging to God, as he is Prime Verity. This is, that he cannot so much as connive unto falsehood whereby he become any way accessary of deceiving then that simply, readily, religiously believe what they have just reason to think to be his word. But there is just and sufficient reason to believe that doctrine delivered by full and perpetual Tradition, hand to hand from the Apostles, is verily their doctrine, and therefore Gods. Ergo God being the prime verity cannot permit Catholic Christian Tradition to be falsifyed.   

How the Church's Tradition is proved infallible, independently of Scripture. §. 4.  
HENCE is answered the common Objection which Protestants make, that Tradition of doctrine from hand to hand made by men, is fallible, & subject to error, for they may deceive, or be deceived. If We answer, that Christian Catholic Tradition of doctrines is infallible, through God's special assistance, They reply, this infallibility of tradition through divine assistance cannot be known but by the Scripture, and so before we can build our faith on Tradition as infallible, we must know the Scripture to be the word of God, and consequently we cannot build our persuasion of the Scriptures being Apostolical and divine, on Tradition, except we commit a Circle.  
I Answer. First, that Catholic Tradition is proved to be 
(m) Est summus gradus certitudinis humanae de qua SIMPLICITER dici potest, non posse illi falsum subesse. Suarez de gratia l. 9 c. 11. n. 11. Et hoc ibid. probat.  simply infallible, by the very nature thereof. For Tradition being full report about what was evident unto sense, to wit, what doctrines and Scriptures the Apostles publicly delivered unto the world, it is impossible it should be false. Worlds of men cannot be uniformly mistaken and deceived about a matter evident to sense, and not being deceived, being so many in number, so divided in place, of so different affectious and conditious, it is impossible they 
(n) Neglexerit officium suum Villicus Christi etc. Quî verisimile, ut tot & tantae Ecclesiae in unam fidem erraverint? variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarun. Caeterùm, quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum. Tertullian. de prescript. c. 28.  should so have agreed in their tale, had they maliciously resolved to deceive the world. Wherefore it is impossible that what is delivered by full Catholic tradition from the Apostles, should be a thing by the traditioners first devised. Secondly, I say, that how soever human Tradition may be by nature fallible, yet the Christian Catholic is assisted of God that no error can creep into the same. Which divine assistance to be due unto it, is demonstrated by the perfection of Divine verity, & by the nature of tradition, precedently & independently of Scripture, and therefore without any Circle by two Arguments.  
The first is the same we before touched. God being Prime Verity cannot connive, that the means of conveying the Apostles doctrine unto posterity which bindeth Religious believers to receive the same as his word, should secretly be infected with damnable Error. For being Infinite Verity in his knowledge, this cannot be done without his privity. Knowing thereof, being infinite veracity in his teaching the truth, he cannot yield that the means of conveying his truth obliging men to believe, should imperceptibly be poisoned, whereby men for their devotion unto his Verity incur damnation. This being so, I assume: But the Catholic tradition of doctrine from the Apostles bindeth Christians to whom it is delivered, to believe the same as God's word. This I prove. When doctrine is sufficiently proposed as God's word, men are bound to believe it. But that is sufficiently proposed as God's word unto Christians which is unto them sufficiently proposed ●s Doctrine of the Apostles. Now, that Catholic Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is sufficient proposition and proof, that that Doctrine is the Apostles, is proved; first because Catholic tradition of doctrine is by nature simply infallible, as hath been showed, but proposition known simply to be infallible, is sufficient to bind men to believe. Secondly, Catholic tradition, that is, the report of a world of Ancestors concerning sensible matters of fact, is so pregnant and obligatory, as it were insolent madness to deny it. In so much, as even 
(o) Caluin. Institut. l. 1. c. 8. n. 9 Quaerunt quis nos certiores fecerit à Moyse & aliis Prophetis haec fuisse scripta quae sub eorum nominibus leguntur etc. quis non colaphis & flagellis castistandum illum insanum dicat? Certô certiùs est ipso rum scripta non aliter pervenisse ad posteros, quàm de manu in manum TRADITA.  Caluin saith, that such as deny the tradition of Ancestors concerning the authors of the Canonical books, are rather to be reform with a Cudgel, then refuted by Argument. Thirdly, God himself sendeth children unto the tradition of their Ancestors to learn of them the sensible works of his miraculous power done in former ages, 
(p) Deuteron. 32.7.  Ask thy Father and he will tell thee, thine Ancestors and they will certify thee. Fourthly, the proof of tradition is so full and sufficient as it convinceth infidels. For though they be blind not to see the doctrine of the Apostles to be Divine, yet are they not so void of common sense, impudent and obstinate as they will deny the doctrine of Christian Catholic tradition to be truly Christian & Apostolical. Whence two things are evident. First, that Catholic tradition from the Apostles is an external sufficient proposition, and a convincing argument that the doctrine so delivered is Apostolical, & consequently Divine revealed Doctrine. Secondly, that Heresy which stands against this tradition, 〈◊〉 wilful obstinacy and madness, and worse than Paganism.  
The second argument. God being Prime verity binding all men that will be saved to know and firmly believe the Apostles doctrine, even until the world's end, cannot connive that the only Means to know this doctrine perpetually, and ever after the apostles decease, be secretly & insensibly poisoned with errors against the truth of Salvation. This is ●eere. The only means whereby men succeeding ●he Apostles may know assuredly what Scriptures ●nd doctrines they delivered to the Primitive Catholic Church, is the Catholic tradition by world's ●f Christian Fathers & Pastors, unto worlds of Christian children and faithful people, Ergo, Catholic Tradition is by God the Prime verity, so defended, preserved, & assisted as no error against Salvation ●an be delivered by the same, & consequently it appears by the very notion of prime Verity independently of Scripture, that Catholic tradition is ●roued to be infallible, through God's special assistance.   

●he difference between Prophetical, and ordinary Divine Illumination, by which Protestants Cavils are answered. §. 5.  
AGAINST the Minor of the former argument, Protestants object first, that though the testimony of tradition be a good 
(q) Reply pa. 15. lin. 32.  moral, human, and pro●able proof, that these Scriptures were by the Apostles delivered; yet the chief ground of faith in ●his point, is inward illumination, & the testimony ●f the spirit speaking within our hart, and assuring 〈◊〉 of the truth. I answer, God may assure men of ●ruth by inward inspiration two ways; first, by the ●●ght of inward teaching and inspiration, without ●he mediation and concourse of any external infallible ground of assurance. Secondly, by the light ●f his spirit inwardly moving the heart of man to adhere unto an infallible external ground of assurance proposed unto him, God by the help of his grace making him apprehend divinely of the authority thereof. This second manner of inward assurance is ordinarily given unto every Christian, without 
(r) Triden. sess. 6. Can. 3. Arausican. 2. Can. 6.  which no man is able to believe supernaturally, and as he ought unto Salvation. The first manner of assurance is extraordinary, and immediate revelation, such as the Prophets had. Wherefore Protestants, if they calling this first manner of inward teaching & assurance, they approve Enthusiasm, & immediate revelation, which in the Swenkfeldians they seem to condemn. If they challenge only the second manner of inward teaching and assurance, then besides inward light, they must assign an external sufficient ground why they believe these Scriptures to be the Apostles, & then I ask what ground this is beside Tradition?  
Secondly, they will object, that though they have no infallible ground besides the teaching of the Spirit, yet they are not taught immediately in Prophetical manner because they are also taught by an external probable motive, to wit the Church's tradition. I Answer, that except they assign an external infallible means besides Gods inward teaching, they cannot avoid, but they challenge immediate revelation. For whosoever knoweth things assuredly by the inward teaching of the spirit, without an external infallible motive unto which he doth adhere, is assured prophetically, though he have some external probable motives so to think. S. Peter had some conjectural signs of Simon Magus his perversity & incorrigible malice; yet seeing 
(s) Act. 8.32. In fell amaritudinis & obligatione peccati video te esse.  he knew it assuredly, we believe he knew it by the light of prophecy, because besides inward assurance he had no external infallible ground. If one see a man give publicly alms▪ though he perceive probable tokens & signs that he doth it out of a Vayneglorious intention; yet cannot he be sure thereof but by the light of immediate revelation, because the other tokens are not grounds sufficient to make him sure. For if a man be sure, & have no ground of this assurance in any thing out of his own hart, it is clear, that he is assured immediately, & only by Gods inward speaking. Wherefore Protestant's, if they will disclaim in truth, and not in words only from immediate revelation and teaching, they must either grant tradition to be infallible, or else assign some external infallible ground besides Tradition, whereby they are taught what Scriptures the Apostles delivered.  
Thirdly, they will say they know the Scriptures to be from the Apostles, by an external infallible ground besides Tradition, to wit, by certain lights, lustres, evidences of truth, which they see to blaze, & emane from the things revealed in Scripture, by which they are sure that the doctrine thereof is heavenly. I Answer, If they did see such lustres and lights that clearly, & not only probably, convince the doctrine of Scripture to be heavenly truth, they be not indeed assured by immediate dark revelation, but by an higher degree of heavenly knowledge, to wit, by the supernatural light and evidence of the thing believed, which is a paradox, and pretence fare more false, and sensibly absurd, then is the challenge of immediate revelation, or Enthusiasm, as hath been showed. Wherefore, seeing that God hath chosen no external means besides Catholic Tradition to make men know perpetually, until the consummation of the world, what doctrines & Scriptures the Apostles published, it is clear unto every Christian, that this is the means by him chosen, & which he doth assist, that it cannot be obnoxious unto error: so that precedently and independently of Scripture, the Catholic tradition of Christian pastors & fathers is proved to be infallible, through Divine special assistance, and therefore a sufficient ground for Faiths infallible assurance.   

The Fourth Principle proved. §. 6.  
IF we be resolved, that saving truth is that which God revealed, that he revealed that which the Apostles published, the doctrine published by then the Catholic Christian Tradition, our search is ended, when we have found the Christian Catholic Church. Hear the fourth Enemy of true Christian Religion offers himself, to wit, the Wilful Ignorant. These kind of men not only hold against Pagans, the doctrine of salvation to be that only which was revealed of God; against jews, the revealed of God to be only the Apostles, but also in words they condemn the Heretics & profess that no doctrine is truly Apostolical but the Catholic; yet in resolving what doctrine is the Catholic, they follow the partiality of their affections. These are termed by 
(t) De vtil. cred. c. 1.  S. Augustine, Credentes haereticorum, Believers of Heretics, building upon the seeming learning and sanctity of some men; being therein so wilful, as to venture their souls that such doctrine is Catholic, not caring nor knowing what they say, nor what the word Catholic put into the Creed by the Apostles doth import. Some be so ignorant, as to think that the word Catholic doth signify the same, as conform unto Scripture. And so what doctrine is Catholic, they resolve by the light and lustre of the doctrine, or by the in ward teaching of the spirit, whereby they fall upon the principle of Heresy, and become not so much believers of Heretics as Heretics. Some understand by the word Catholic, Doctrine truly Catholic, that is, delivered from the Apostles by Christian worlds of Fathers, unto Christian worlds of children, yet are so blind as to give this Title unto Sects lately sprung up, which through pretended singular Illuminations, gotten by perusing the Scripture, have chosen forms of faith opposite one against another, reform against the form to them delivered by their Ancestors: These Sects I say, they term Catholic, which not to be Catholic in this sense, is as evident as that night is not day.  
Some through wilful ignorance, no less grossly divide the name of Catholic according to the division of Countries, naming the Catholic doctrine of the Church of France, of the Church of England etc. Which speech hath no more sense, than this: A fashion ever since Christ universally over the world, newly begun, and proper unto England.  
Against this Enemy true Religion is resolved in this fourth principle, The Catholic Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is the Roman. By Roman we understand not only the Religion professed within the City & Diocese of Rome, but over the whole world by them that any where acknowledge the primacy of Peter and his successors, which now is the Roman Bishop. About this principle faith is assured by a fourth perfection belonging unto God, as he is prime Verity revealing truth, which is, that he cannot permit, that the knowing of saving doctrine be impossible.  
Hence I argue: God being Prime Verity revealing, cannot permit the means of knowing his saving truth to be hidden, nor a false means to be so adorned with the marks of the true, as the true become indiscernible from it. But if the Roman be not the true Catholic Tradition, the true Catholic Church and Tradition is hidden, yea a false Church hath so clearly the marks of Catholic, that no other can with any colour pretend to be rather Catholic then it, that is, to have doctrine delivered from the Apostles, by whole worlds of Christian Fathers unto whole worlds of Christian Children Hence either there is no means left to know assuredly the saving truth, or else the means is immediate revelation, that is, inward teaching of the spirit, without any external infallible means, or else Scripture known to be the word of God, and truly sensed, by the light, lustre, and evidence of the things: which ways of teaching, it is certain, God doth not use towards his militant Church succeeding the Apostles. For teaching of divine and supernatural truth by the light, lustre, and shining of the thing or doctrine, is proper unto the Church triumphant. Inward assurance without any external infallible ground to assure men of truth, is proper unto the Prophets, and the first publishers of Christian Religion. Hence I conclude, that if God be the Prime Verity, teaching Christian Religion darkly without making men see the light, and lustre of things believed, and mediately by some external infallible means, upon which inward assurance must rely; then he must ever conserve the Catholic tradition, and Church, visible and conspicuous, that the same may without immediate revelation, and otherwise than by the lustre of doctrine be discerned, to wit, by sensible marks.  
If any object, that the senses of men in this search may be deceived through natural invincible fallibility of their organs, and so no ground of faith that is altogether infallible. I Answer, that evidence had by sense being but the private of one man, is naturally and physically infallible; but when the same is also public and Catholic, that is, when a whole world of men concur with him, than his evidence is altogether infallible. Besides, seeing God hath resolved not to teach men immediately, but will have them to cleave unto an external infallible means, & to find out this means by the sensible evidence of the thing, he is bound by the perfection of his Veracity to assist men's senses with his providence, that therein they be not deceived when they use such diligence as men ordinarily use, that they be not deceived by their senses. Now, what greater evidence can one have that he is not deceived in this matter of sense, that the Roman Doctrine is the Catholic, that is, Doctrine delivered from the Apostles by worlds of Christian Ancestors, spread over the world, unanimous amongst themselves in all matters they believe as Faith; what greater assurance I say, can one have, that herein he seethe aright, than a whole world of men professing to see the same that he doth?  
Some may again object, I believe the Catholic Church is an Article of Faith set down in the Creed, but Faith is resolution about things that are not seen. I Answer, An article of Faith may be visible according to the substance of the thing, & yet invisible according to the manner it is believed in the Creed. The third article, He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried, according to the substance of the thing, was evident unto sense, and seen even of the jews, and is now believed of their posterity. But according to the manner as it is believed in the Creed, to wit, that herein the Word of God by his ancient Prophets was fulfilled, that this was done in charity for the salvation of Man; in this manner (I say) that visible Article is invisible, and believed in the Creed. In like manner that there is in the world a Catholic Church, and that the Roman is the Catholic Church, Pagans, jews, & Heretics (if they shut not their eyes against the light) do clearly behold: But that herein the word of God about the perpetual amplitude of his Church is accomplished, that this is an effect of God's Veracity, to the end that the means to learn saving truth may not be hidden; this is a thing invisible, & according to this notion the Catholic Church is proposed in the Creed. Secondly, propositions of faith must be invisible according to the Predicate, or thing believed; but not ever according to the subject or thing whereof we believe. The things the Apostles believed of Christ, to wit that he was the Saviour of the world, the Son of God, were things invisible; but the subject and person of whom they did believe, was to them visible & seen; yea God did of purpose by his Prophets foretell certain tokens, whereby that subject might by sense be seen and discerned from all other, that might pretend the name of Christ or else his coming into the world to teach the truth, had been to no purpose. In this sort the Predicate, or thing believed in this article the holy Catholic Church, to wit Holy is invisible, but the Subject, to wit, the Catholic Church which we affirm and believe to be holy in her doctrine, is visible and conspicuous unto all. Yea God hath of purpose foretold signs and tokens whereby the same by sense may be clearly discernible from all other that may pretend the title of Catholic. For were not this subject, the Catholic Church, we believe to be holy and infallible in her teaching, visible and discernible from all other that pretend the name; of what use were it to believe that there is such an infallible teaching Church in the world, hidden we know not where, as a needle in a bottle of hay?  
The End of the Resolution of Faith.  
THESE things supposed, the Reader will have no difficulty to discern how frivolous the Ministers exceptions are against the resolution of faith in respect of believing doctrines to be the Apostles into Perpetual Tradition; and how solid the jesuits discourse was, which here ensueth.     

THE FIRST GROUND.  

That a Christian resolution of Faith is builded upon perpetual Tradition, derived by succession from the Apostles. §. 1.  
BEFORE I come to the proof of this principle some things are to be presupposed, which I think Protestants will not deny. First, that no man can be saved, or attain to the blissful vision of God, without firm and assured apprehension of divine & supernatural truth concerning his last end, and the means to arrive thereunto. Secondly that this assured apprehension is not had by a 
(e) The Minister here granteth, that Faith is not had by clear & evident sight: but afterward he saith the same is resolved by the resplendent verity of the doctrine.  clear and evident sight, nor gotten by demonstration or humane discourse by the principles of reason, nor can be sufficiently had by credit given to merely humane authority, but only by Faith grounded on the word of God, revealing unto men things that otherwise are known only to his Infinite wisdom. Thirdly, that God revealed all these verityes to Christ's jesus, and he 
(f) Omnia quae audivi à Patre nota feci vobis. joan. 15. v. 15.  again to his Apostles, partly by word of mouth, but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy spirit, to the end that they should deliver 
(g) Docete omnes gentes. Math. 28.20.  them unto mankind, to be received and believed every where over the world, even to the consummation thereof. Fourthly, that the 
(h) Illi profecti praedicaverunt ubique. Marc. vlt. 20.  Apostles did accordingly preach to all nations, & deliver unto them partly by writing, partly by word of mouth, the 
(i) O Timothee, depositum custodi. 1. Tim. 6.20.  whole entire doctrine of salvation, planting an universal Christian company, charging them to keep inviolably, and to deliver 
(k) Haec commenda fidelibus hominibus qui possunt alios instruere. 2. Tim. 1.2.  unto their posterities, what they had of them the first messengers of the Gospel. Fiftly, though the Apostles be departed, & their primitive Hearers deceased, yet there still remains a means in the world, by which all men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached, and the primitive Church received of them, seeing the Church even to the world's end must be 
(l) Ephes. 2.20. etc. 4.5.11.  founded on the Apostles, and believe nothing as matter of Faith, besides that which was delivered of them.  
These things being supposed the question is, What this means is, and how men may now adays, so many ages after their death, know certainly what the Apostles taught originally, & preached?  
To which question I answer, that the last and final resolution 
(m) Note that the Minister many times doth falsify the jesuits Tenet, specially pag. 34. saying, That the last and final resolution is into unwritten Tradition, & not into Scripture. This he doth not say, but that the persuasion that our Faith is true, is finally resolved into the authority of God revealing, and that it is Divine, into the Apostles miraculous preaching. But what doctrine was taught by the Apostles we know only by Tradition.  thereof, is not into Scripture, but into the perpetual tradition of the Church succeeding 
(n) All from this place unto the first argument the Minister leaveth out being the substance of the whole discourse, yet he saith, he hath set down the book verbatim. See his Preface.  the Apostles, according to the principle set down by Tertullian in the beginning of his golden (by Protestants commended) Book, 
(o) Tertull. de prescript 1.61.21.  Quid Apostoli p●●dicauerint praescribam, non aliter probari debere quàm per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt: that is, I set down this principle, what the Apostles taught, is to be proved, NO OTHERWISE then by the TRADITION of the Churches which they planted. By which Prescription joined with the other five suppositions, is raised the Ladder for true Catholic resolution about Faith, set down by the said Tertullian, on which a Christian by degrees mounts unto God, or as S. Augustine 
(p) August. de utilitate credendi cap. 10.  saith ducitur pedetentim quibusdam gradibus ad summâ penetralia veritatis: the Ladder is this, & the ascending by it, in this sort: What 
(q) Tertull. de praescrip. c. 21. & 37. Nos ab Ecclesijs, Ecclesiae ab Apostolis, Apostoli à Christo, Christus à Deo.  I believe, I received from the present Church, the present from the primitive Church, the primitive Church from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, God the prime verity from no other fountain, different from his own infallible knowledge. So that who so cleaveth not to the present Church, firmly believing the tradition thereof as being come down by succession, is not so much as on the lowest step of the Ladder, that leads unto God, the revealer of saving truth; successive tradition unwritten being the last and final ground whereon we believe, that the substantial points of our belief 
(r) Note the jesuit doth not say Tradition is the last ground on which we believe our Faith to be saving truth, or the word of God; but only, that it came from the Apostles, so mounting up by the Church unto the Apostles, by the Apostles unto God, and by him unto all necessary truth.  came from the Apostles. This I prove by these four 
(*) These arguments as they convince there is no means to know what the Apostles taught, but Christian Tradition; so they consequently convince, that if the Christian Religion be saving truth, God must assist this perpetual Catholic Tradition thereof, that no Errors creep into it.  arguments.  

The first Argument.  
IF the main and substantial points of our faith be believed to be Apostolical, because written in the Scripture of the new Testament, and the Scriptures of the new Testament are believed to come from the Apostles upon the voice of perpetual tradition unwritten; then our Resolution that our faith is Apostolical, stayeth lastly and finally upon Tradition unwritten.  
But so it is, that the Scriptures of the new Testament cannot be proved to have been delivered unto the Church by the Apostles, but by the perpetual Tradition unwritten, conserved in the Church succeeding the Apostles. For what other proof can be imagined except one would prove it by the 
(a) The Minister pag. 19 to Titles, addeth inscription of some Epistles, subscription, & insertion of names, in the body of the books: but neither is this true of all books, nor of all Epistles, nor it is enough to satisfy a man. For may not a counterfeit write a Gospel for example in the name of Peter, repeating the name of Peter the Apostle, in the book twenty times? So it is childish to mention this as the last stay of persuasion. For what more childish then to prove a thing unknown by another as much unknown?  Titles of the books, which were absurd, seeing doubt may be made, whether those Titles were set on the Books by the Apostles themselves, of which doubt only Tradition can resolve us. Besides, the Gospel of S. Mark, S. Luke, as also the Acts of the Apostles were not written by any Apostles, but were by their lively voice, and suffrages recommended unto Christians as Sacred▪ & Divine otherwise (as also 
(b) Bilson de perpetua gubernatione Ecclesiae. pag. 85. Historiae illae à Marco & Luca exaratae, Canonicam authoritatem ex Apostolorum suffragi●s nactae sunt, qui eas lectas approbârunt.  M. Bilson noteth) they should never have obtained such eminent authority in the Church, neither should they be now so esteemed but upon the supposal of Apostolical approbation. But how shall we know that the Apostles saw these writings, and recommended the same unto Christian Churches, but by Tradition? Ergo, the last and highest ground on which we believe what doctrine was delivered by the Apostles, is the tradition of the Church suceceding them.  
For we may distinguish three properties of doctrine of faith, to wit, to be True, to be Revealed of God, to be Preached and delivered of the Apostles. The highest ground by which I am persuaded that my faith is true, is the authority of God revealing it. The highest ground on which I am resolved that my Faith is revealed, is the credit and authority of Christ jesus, & his Apostles, who delivered the same as Divine and Sacred. But the highest ground that moveth me to believe that my faith was 
(c) The Minister, and especially the Bishop's Chaplin pag. 16. & 17. charge the Answerer to resolve faith of the Scriptures being the word of God into only Tradition. This is a slander: for he doth distinguish expressly in scripture the being preached by the Apostles, from the being revealed of God or his word. This second property is spiritual, and hidden, and believed not upon Tradition from the Apostles directly, but upon the word of the Apostles so affirming, confirmed with the testimony of miracles wrought by the Holy GHOST: but to be preached and planted in the world, was a public sensible thing, & so is known by Tradition, hand to hand from the Apostles. Thus the Church as believing her doctrine to be true, is built upon God, as believing her doctrine to be of God is built on the Apostles, as believing her doctrine to be the Apostles, is built on the Tradition of Pastors succeeding them, The ground and pillar of Truth by office, as our Minister grants pag. 9 lin. 5.  preached by the Apostles, is the perpetual tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles that so teacheth me. Into this principle 
(d) Aug. cont. epist. Fund. cap. 5.  Saint Augustine resolved his faith against the Manichees who pretended that the Scriptures of the new Testament had been corrupted, confuting them by the Tradition of the Church; affirming That he would not believe the Gospel, did not the Authority of the Catholic Church induce him, assigning this as the last stay of his resolution in this point. For though he believed the Gospel to be soveraignely certain and true, upon the authority of God revealing it, and that it was revealed of God, upon the authority of the Apostles, who as Sacred preached it; yet that this Gospel (as we have it) came incorrupt from the Apostles, he could have no stronger, or more 
(e) The Minister forced by this testimony granteth two things which overthrow his cause: first pa. 22. l. 13.14. that Novices and simple persons ground their faith on the authority of the Church; as also Field granteth, appendix. part. 1. pag. 11. now I assume. But the faith of Novices is saving faith, as S. Aug. there saith contra Epist. Fundamenti c. 2. and consequently their faith is divine. Ergo, saving & supernatural faith is grounded on the authority of the Church. Secondly, he grants pag. 23. lin. 2. & 3. that The Church as including the Apostles, can prove the Scripture: whence it is consequent that the Scriptures are not principles known by themselves, but have another higher divine principle, by which they are proved, The Church comprehending the Apostles being (as Protestant's grant Field. l. 4. of Church c. 21.) of greater authority, than Scripture.  excellent proof than the testimony of the present Church, descending by the continual succession of Bishops from the Apostles. Neither can we imagine an higher, except we fly to particular & private revelation, which is absurd.   

The second Argument.  
SECONDLY I prove, that common unlearned people (the greatest part of Christianity) are persuaded about all substantial points of faith by Tradition, not by Scripture. Common & unlearned people have true Christian faith in all points necessary and sufficient unto salvation, but they have not faith of all these main and substantial points grounded on Scripture; for they can neither understand nor read any Scripture, but translated into vulgar languages, & so if they believe upon scripture, they believe upon Scripture translated into their Mother tongue; but before that they can know that the Scriptures are truly translated, even in all substantial points, that so they may build on it, they must first know what are the main and substantial points, & 
(f) To this proof that Christians believe their Creed more firmly than any translation, the Minister hath not answered one word, nor can answer, for it is convincing, as appears by this syllogism. Persuasion more certain and firm cannot be grounded on persuasion less firm and certain. Such as are true Christians believe the articles of their Creed more firmly, than they do that Scriptures are truly translated into their vulgar tongue. Ergo, True Christians do not build their Faith of the Creed on Scripture translated, but on doctrine known to be the Apostles formerly, and more firmly, than that Scripture is truly translated.  firmly believe them, so that they would not believe the Scriptures, translated against them. For if they know them not before, how can they know, that Scriptures in places that concern them, are truly translated? If they do not before hand firmly believe them, why should they be ready to allow translations that agree with them, and to reject the translations that differ from them? Ergo, 
(g) The Minister pag. 26. saith, That Ignorant men resolve their faith into Scripture; yet not into Scripture so distinctly known as they can tell the names of the several Books, Authors and Sections, and so they resolve implicitly, not explicitly. This is idle. For if they know the doctrine of the Scripture because it is written, though they know not the name of the book, nor number of the Chapter & Verse, nor the formal text, what ground firmer than their Creed have they this to believe?  originally, & before they know any Scripture, they have faith grounded on the Traditions of Ancestors, by the light whereof they are able to judge of the truth of Translations, about such substantial points as they firmly believe by Tradition. And this is that which Protestants must mean (if they have any true meaning) when they say, that the common People know Scriptures to be truly translated, by the 
(h) The Minister is forced to fly to a found paradox confuted already, That unlearned Rustics know the Scripture to be God's word by the matter and form of the books, and by seeing the resplendent verity of the doctrine, pag. 28. lin. 3. He addeth. lin. 7. That they which actually resolve their faith into the doctrine of Scripture, do virtually & mediately resolve the same into the very Scripture, though they know not that it is written in Scripture. This is frivolous and false. For the Pagan and Infidels, that know honey to be sweet, and taken in abundance to be hurtful, should virtually resolve their persuasion into the very Scripture, because they actually believe a thing affirmed in Scripture, Prou. 25. 27. Yea the jew believing that Christ was crucified, believes a doctrine of Scripture; doth he therefore resolve and build virtually upon Scripture? No. That one build on Scripture it is not enough to know actually some doctrine which is in Scripture, but he must know that it is in Scripture, and believe the Scripture ●o be the word of God: but ignorant persons cannot know infallibly Scriptures to be the word of God truly translated,, further than they find them conform to the doctrine delivered by the Tradition of the Church. Therefore they build their Faith finally upon Tradition, & not upon Scripture truly translated.  light of the doctrine, shining in true Translations, to wit, by the light of the doctrine received by Tradition of Ancestors; and thereupon so firmly believed as they will acknowledge Scriptures to be truly translated so far, and no further than they perceive them, consonant with the faith delivered unto them; so that their last and final resolution for substantial points, is not into Scriptures truly translated into their vulgar tongue, but into Tradition, by the light whereof they discern that the Translations are true more or less, according to the measure of knowledge they have by Tradition.   

The third Argument.  
IF all the main and substantial points of Christian Faith must be known and firmly believed before we can securely read and truly understand the Holy Scripture, than the main and substantial points of faith are believed, not upon Scripture, but upon Tradition precedently unto Scripture. This is clear, because true faith is not built but upon Scripture truly understood: neither can Scripture before it be truly understood of a man, be to him a ground of assured persuasion. But we cannot understand the Scripture securely and aright, before we know the substantial articles of faith, which all are bound expressly to believe the 
(i) The Minister here laboureth to prove that the rule of faith is contained in Scripture, and therefore cannot be Tradition unwritten. Which discourse is impertinent and the inference false. For himself grants pag. 150. lin. 16. that the rule of faith is both written Tradition and unwritten. The Doctrine then of Tradition is termed unwritten, not because it is no ways written, but because (as the Answerer saith) it is known by preaching precedently and independently of Scripture.  summary comprehension of which points, is termed the Rule 
(*) Tertul. de Praescr. c. 13.  of faith. This is 
(k) The Answerer here brings three Arguments that convince, that none can understand Scripture securely and without danger of damnable error, that are not aforehand grounded in the substantial articles of faith. The Minister though he profess to have set down the Answer Verbatim, leaveth all this out, and then cryeth thus against the jesuite, pag. 34. circa finem. That men must be first instructed in the necessary points of faith before they can securedly read and interpret Scriptures, is affirmed by the jesuite, but not proved. Thus he. What not proved? The jesuit brings three large convictive proofs thereof, which you because you cannot answer omit, and then cry: the jesuit doth say, and not prove. This dealing is gross.  proved by the acknowledgement of Protestans in whose name 
(l) D. Feild. l. 3. of the Church cap. 4.  D. Feild writeth in this sort: We hold with the Papists, that neither conference of places, nor consideration of antecedentia and consequentia, nor the knowledge of tongues, and looking into the originals ●s of any force, unless we find the things which we conceive to be understood and meant in the places interpreted, to be consonant unto the rule of faith. 
(m) D. Feild. l. 4. of the Church cap. 14. & 19  For who can be able to understand the Scriptures, but he that is settled in those things which the Apostles presupposed in their delivery of Scripture? Secondly, by the experience both of all former ages, and this present, proving by too many examples, that such as come to read & expound Scripture without being aforehand settled by Tradition in the rule of faith, do fall into errors most damnable against the mainest articles of the Creed, as the Creation of the world, the blessed Trinity, and the Incarnation, Baptism, and other. So that reading & interpretation of Scripture makes not men Christians, but supposeth them to be made by Tradition, at the least for substantial points, such as every one is bound expressly to know.  
Thirdly, we are not more able to understand Scripture then were our Forefathers the ancient Doctors of the Church, neither is there reason that we should so think of ourselves; but they thought themselves unable to interpret Scripture, precisely of itself by conference of places, without the light of Christian Doctrine aforehand known, and firmly believed upon the Churches perpetual Tradition from the Apostles: witness 
(n) Ruffinus Eccles. hist. l. 2. c. 9  S. Basill and S. Gregory Nazianzen the two grande Doctors of the Grecian Church, and Origen who thus writes: 
(o) Orig. tract. in Matth. cap. 29.  In our understanding of Scriptures: we must not departed from the first Ecclesiastical Tradition, nor believe otherwise, but as the Church of God hath by succession delivered to us. Ergo, no man is able to read & interpret Scripture without 
(p) Protestants affirm, as Whitaker. contr. 1. q. 4. c. 2. and others, that no man can understand Scripture that brings not with him the light of faith and Christian piety, puras & sanctas mentes: which doth most evidently demonstrate that faith about substantial points is grounded on God's word precedently unto Scripture. That persuasion which is precedent unto the knowledge of Scripture, and is the rule guiding us in our knowledge of Scripture, cannot be grounded upon knowledge of Scripture. But Christian faith & piety as they grant, is precedent unto knowledge of Scripture, yea must be brought unto the reading thereof, and direct us in it. Ergo faith is not originally grounded on Scripture.  the light & assistance of firm Christian faith, aforehand conceived by the voice of the Church delivering what by Tradition from Ancestors she received. Whence I also conclude, that it is exceeding dangerous boldness in men of this age, so to presume on their interpretations of Scriptures gotten by diligent reading and conferring of places, as they care not though a 
(q) Luther de captiu. Babyl. Tom. 2. Wittenberg. pag. 344.  thousand of Cyprians, Augustins, Churches & Traditions should stand against them.   

The fourth Argument.  
THOSE that understand the Scriptures aright, must be such as they were to whom the Apostles writ and delivered the Scriptures, and whose instruction they intended by their writing, but the Apostles (as D. 
(r) Lib. 4. of the Church c. 4. in the margin.  Feild acknowledgeth) wrote to them they had formerly taught more at large, that were instructed and grounded in all substantial and necessary points of faith, that knew the common necessary observations of Christianity: Ergo, they that read and presume to interpret the Scriptures, without first knowing and firmly believing by tradition, at the least all necessary and substantial points of faith, 
(s) The Minister pag. 34. lin. 34. chargeth the jesuite to say that men not believing forehand all necessary points of faith cannot have any certain understanding of Scripture. This is a slander. He only saith that such ignorants, and wanters of belief cannot understand aright Scriptures in all necessary points, but they will err in some chief article or other, though they may happily understand something aright. For there was never Heretic that did err in all necessary points. But it is enough to damnation to err in one substantial point, & therefore we must not presume to read & interpret Scriptures, till we be well grounded in them by the Tradition of the Church.  cannot with assurance understand them, but may even in mainest points mightily mistake: for the blessed Apostles writing to Christians, that were beforehand fully taught and settled in substantial Christian Doctrines and customs, do ordinarily in their writings suppose such things as abundantly known, without declaring them anew, only touching them 
(t) Thus S. Peter act. 9.3. & 4. reprehending Ananias for the breach of his Vow, doth by the way teach the holy Ghosts Divinity, Why hath Satan filled thy hart to lie to the holy Ghost? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. For what is spoken directly and of purpose in Scripture, is no more infallible truth than what is spoken but cursorily & by the way. Wherefore the former speech of S. Peter doth assure us, that the holy Ghost is God, as much as that it is a sin to break a vow; and yet that is spoken by the way, and this of purpose. Whence you may see the Ministers great weakness of judgement who holding that some points of faith are contained in Scripture only consequently, pag. 32. lin. 3. raileth at the jesuite, for saying that some things are said in Scripture cursorily and by the way. For to be written cursorily and by the way which the jesuite gives unto Scripture, is more than to be only virtually, and consequently written.  cursorily by the way, and therefore obscurely, so that they who are already taught might well understand their sayings, and no other.    

Concerning the sufficiency, and clarity of Scripture. §. 2.  
HENCE I may further infer, that Protestants have not yet throughly pondered the place of the Apostles to Timothy which they so vehemently urge to prove the all-sufficiency of sole Scripture for every man, as though the Apostles had said absolutely that the Scriptures are able to instruct, or make any man wise unto salvation: which he says not, but speaking particularly 
(u) 2. Tim. 3.14.15.16.17.  unto Timothy saith, They are able to instruct, or make Thee wise unto salvation; Thee, 
(x) The Minister here laboureth impertinenly to prove that speeches unto one single person may be general unto many other in Scripture, which no man denies. And so this speech They are able to make Thee wise, is general unto all persons that are like to Timothy, that is, instructed aforehand and settled in the faith of Tradition. For what is said unto one single person is not said unto others, further than they agree with that party in the cause, for which it is truly said of him. What God said unto Abraham Gen. 15.12. I am thy Protector, is not said to all men, but only to all men that were like Abraham, that is, devout worshippers of the true God, as he was.  that hast been aforehand instructed by word of mouth, & dost thereupon firmly believe all substantial doctrines, and knowest all the necessary practices of the Christian discipline. Verily the Apostle in that place speaketh only of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, affirming them not sufficient for every man, but for Timothy; and not sufficient for him by themselves alone, but per fidem quae est in Christo jesu, that is joined with the doctrine of the Christian faith, which Tymothy had heard, and believed upon the lively voice of Tradition.  
And the consequent words of the Apostle so much insisted upon, All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach etc. If Protestants could so 
(y) 
The Minister here heapeth many speeches of Fathers, that say the Scriptures are sufficient, to prove that Profitable signify the same that Sufficient. This is ridiculous. The jesuit grants the Scripture to be sufficient for them that know Tradition, yet he will still deny that profitable signify the same as sufficient.  

How Catholics grant the same sufficiency to be in Scripture as Protestants, and the true state of the Question about sufficiency of Scripture, and of Tradition.  
THE Minister here enters into a long impertinent discourse about the clarity & sufficiency of Scripture, setting titles over the heads of his pages, Many Scriptures plain; the Scriptures sufficient etc. as who would say, the Answerer had denied this. To discover these his false insinuations, and to clear this controversy most important, we must know 5. things. First that there was once a controversy betwixt Protestants, and us about the sufficiency & clarity of Scripture. For in their beginning they taught all matter of faith to be EXPRESSED in Scripture, and nothing involved: Omnia expressa nihil involutum; De tota Scriptura dico nullam eius partem obscuram esse. So Luther de ●er●to Arbitrio. in Tom. 2. Wittenberg. Nothing is to be believed without the word of God, though it seem deduced by good consequence. Luther in locis common. 1. part. c. 24. pag. 69. Secondly, now Protestant's (even our Minister pag. 32 lin. 2. and often in this reply) disclaim from express and formal Scripture, and pretend that all things are written either formally or virtually, and so confess, that there is herein no difference betwixt the most learned Papists and them. So saith Field Church. l. 4. c. 20. pag. 241. lin. 6. Thirdly, when some Catholics, as Dominicus Bannes, so many times cited by the Minister. pag 151. Marg lit. f. pag 109. lin. 40. pag. 189. mark lit. b. pag. 580. mark lit. a. say, that some points be neither expressly nor inuoluedly in Scripture, they do not mean that they are not virtually involved in things contained in Scripture as effects in their cause, & so are deduceable from Scripture; but only that they are not formally involved in things of Scripture as parts in their whole, in sort as they can be articles of faith by sole Scripture. For things formally involved in Scripture as parts in the whole, a soul and body in man, individuals in the whole mass of their kind be articles of faith by virtue of Scripture. Thus when the Scripture ●aith job was a man, it is said inuoluedly, yet formally, that he had soul & body etc. when the Scripture saith Libanus hath Cedar trees, it saith not formally but virtually, it hath imputrible wood. Fourthly, the question now resting between Protestants and us, is not whether the Scripture be virtually intricate and involved about some points of faith, nor whether some rule of interpretation be necessary; for that the Scripture is involved and needeth an unfolding rule is granted on both sides: The only question is, by what rule these Doctrines involved are unfolded and made known unto us as articles of faith. Protestant's say by Scripture and the rules of Logic and Reason, [Wotton Trial of the Romish etc. pag 88 lin. 29.] and by other things besides Scripture evident in the light of nature, [Feild pag 281. lin. 20.] Catholics hold that the rule to expound Scripture, binding all men to believe deductions as matters of faith, is not Logic, but the Tradition and definition of the Church.  
And this Catholic doctrine is proved. First, because the rule of faith must be for the capacity of unlearned men aswell as of learned▪ But men unlearned cannot be sure of the virtualityes of Scripture by the rules of Logic, or Logical deduction; for they cannot understand when an argument is good by the rules of Logic. Secondly, the Scripture itself to supply her wants sendeth us not to the rules of Logic, but unto traditions, saying 2. Thessal. 2.15. Hold fast the Traditions ye have received by word or our epistle. They send men to the Church, as to the pillar and ground of truth. 1. Tim. 3.15. which whosoever doth not hear, is as a heathen and a publican. Matth. 13.5.7. Therefore by the rule of Church-Tradition & not by the rules of Logic do we learn authentically the confessed virtualities, obscurities, and involutions of Scripture about matters of faith. Thirdly the Fathers about matters involved in Scripture, send men not unto Logic, but unto Tradition, avouching the same to be a rule as certain & no less estimable than Scripture. S. Chrysostome homil. 4 in 2. ad Thessaly. The Apostles did not deliver all things in Scripture, but some things without writing, and these are as much to be credited as the written: It is a Tradition, this is enough, seek no more. The same is taught by S. Dionysius Eccles. Hierar. c. 1. Iren. l. 2. c. 2.3. & 4. Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst. Euang. c. 8. by S. Basill de Spirit. sanct. c. 27. Epiphan. haeres. 55. & 61. Aug. de Baptis li. 2. c. 7. & lib. 5. c. 23. and the rest.  
Finally, we dislike the Protestant manner of controlling the Church by Scripture. For on the one side they contradict the universal custom and Tradition of the Church at the least, and as they grant, of many ages, saying, The Popish doctrine during the space of nine hundred years hath spread itself over the whole world, so that an universal Apostasy was over the whole face of the earth for many hundred years. [Perkins Exposit. of the Creed. pag. 307. & 400.] On the other side their Arguments out of Scripture are at the most but probable, and they sometimes challenge no more: homini non prorsus alienato probabilior apparet. [Whitak contr. 1. q. 5. c 8. circa finem] Others allege Scripture not with as probable colour as we do. [john White defence pag. 321.] Yea this Minister in his Reply doth acknowledge pag. 581. That by Sophistry we give unto their scriptural arguments seeming and appearing solutions. Now we Catholics think it to be Heretical, & as S. Augustine saith, insolent madness, upon probabilities, upon Arguments from Scripture that receive seeming solutions, to contradict the Christian universal Tradition of many hundred years: For what the Minister saith, this to be done by Sophistry, is ridiculous. For if to give seeming plausible, and probable solutions unto scriptural arguments, against the full Tradition of Christianity be Sophistry, what is true Theology? On the other side, if for men to stand against the Tradition of so many whole Christian ages upon arguments they confess to be probably, and seemingly answered, be Christianity, what is heretical Obstinacy?  
Fifthly, whereas you object that pag. 199. lin. 6. the Fathers disputed from Scripture negatively against Heretics, in this sort; Doctrine is not clearly delivered in Scripture, therefore it is not to be received as Faith; You must know, that the Fathers proceed upon a supposition that was known unto all, and granted by the Heretics themselves, to wit, that the doctrines they disputed against, were not the full and public Tradition of the Catholic Church. For seeing Scripture (as we have showed) doth necessarily suppose Tradition that we may know the true text and sense thereof; so likewise the Fathers when they urge that all doctrine is to be rejected which is not in Scripture, still suppose that that doctrine is not the public Tradition of the Church. Where we must also note, that the Fathers did not only require of Heretics proof from Scripture, by way of deduction & Logical inference (for such all heretics did pretend and herewith deluded silly sots, as now Protestants do) but they required of Heretics to show their doctrine in Scripture, ipsis dictionibus, saith Irenaeus. l. 2. c. 36. expressly and in terms, and prove it, not by texts (saith S. Augustine de unitat. Eccles. c. 3.) which require sharpness of wit in the auditors to judge who doth more probably interpret them, not by places, quae vel interpretem quaerunt, which require an interpreter, and an arguer making Logical inferences upon the text so concluding for his purpose; but by places plain, manifest, clear, which leave no place to contrary exposition, and that no sophistry can wrest them to other sense, to the end that Controversyes which concern the Salvation of souls, be defined by God's formal word, and not by deductions from it according to Logical form. For saith S. Augustine, what more unjust, then Ingeniorum contentionibus causam populorum committere?  
Hence the Father's negative argument from Scripture, overthroweth Protestant Religion, for thus I argue. Nothing is matter of Faith and of necessity, which is not formally and expressly revealed by the word of God either written or unwritten, delivered by full Ecclesiastical Tradition. But no Heretics ever did nor our Protestants now do, or can pretend perpetual public Tradition unwritten for their doctrines, against the Catholic and Roman Church: nor can they prove their Tenets (ipsis dictionibus ex scriptura) by Scripture, averring them in express terms. Only they claim texts which as themselves confess receive seeming & appearing solutions, against which they have nothing to say, but that this is done by Sophistry, so bringing the business of the Salvation of the world to be decided by contention of wit. Therefore their doctrines are to be rejected as unchristian. Finally it is great vanity in you to think that the Traditions unwritten mentioned by Fathers, are conform to your Doctrine, writing as you do pag. 46. By Tradition the Fathers understand not the Fabulous dreams and inventions of Papals, who like Pharisees corrupt the right sense of Scripture by their unwritten Tradition, and affirm those things to be Apostolical which agree with the confessed doctrine of the Apostles like darkness with light. Thus you, with much bitterness, and no less falsehood. For what Gerson [de signis ruinae Eccles. sig. 5.] saith of the heresies of his age, to wit of Waldo, Wickliff and Husse, Fabulae sunt, they are Fables, you turn as by him spoken of perpetual Traditions of the Catholic and Roman Church. The Pharisees did indeed corrupt Scripture. But how? By Logical deductions out of the same, according to your Protestant, and the common Heretical fashion, pretending greater skill than all their Ancestors. That they did affirm that their special observations were Traditions unwritten from Moses, the Scripture hath not a word; yea the thing they most of all objected against our Saviour, was the written Tradition of Moses about keeping the Sabbath Day. [joan. 7.] From which precept not by Tradition unwritten, but by Logical inference, they concluded that our Lord broke the Sabboth-Day by healing diseased persons thereon. So that pharasaical Traditions were never so much as pretended to be doctrines unwritten as you imagine, but to be doctrines concluded from the text of Scripture, by the rules of Reason and Logic, just according to your Protestant pretence.  
Also, what you say, that the Father's Traditions unwritten be not our doctrines but yours, is spoken because you would have men so think though they err, not because you can think the same to be so in truth. For thus I argue against this your silly Shift. The Fathers, as appeareth by their words, understand by Tradition Apostolical unwritten, Dogmata quae peti non possunt è Sacra Scriptura, Doctrines of faith that cannot be gathered from the holy Scriptures with such certitude as they may thereupon be believed as articles of faith. But you pretend and glory, that all your Doctrines of Faith be ex sacris Scripturis petitae, so drawn and gathered from holy Scriptures, as they are believed as Faith only upon this rule. Ergo, it is great vanity for you to say that the Fathers by Apostolical Tradition unwritten, understood the Doctrine not of the Roman Church, but of your Protestant Separation.  
And if from generality (upon which Ministers, whose drift is to deceive, do willingly dwell) we descend to particulars, we shall find that you reject those Doctrines & customs of the Roman Church as Fabulous dreams, and human inventions, which the Fathers expressly, and in terms affirm to be Apostolical Traditions. To pray for the relief of the Souls of the faithful deceased Protestants esteem fabulous: the 
(1) Chrys. Homil. 69. ad Pop.  Father's affirm it was ab Apostolis sancitum, ordained by the Apostles. The binding of the Cleargymen and those that are in the holy Ministry to single life, and from wooing & wiving, do not Protestants detest as impious? 
(2) Concil. Carthag. Can. 2.  yet the fathers say, haec docu●runt Apostoli, haec seruavit antiquitas, this the Apostles taught, this was kept by the Ancients. That it is damnable Sin for Votaries to marry after their vows, do not Protestants contemn as a fabulous invention? & yet 
(3) Epiphan. haeres. 61.  the Fathers say tradiderunt Sancti Dei Apostoli, this is the Tradition of the holy Apostles of God. The custom of making the sign of the Cross on the forehead, Protestant's deride as foolish: 
(4) Basil. de Spirit. Sanct. c. 27.  yet the Fathers affirm, hoc tradiderunt Patres nostri in silentio sine literis, it was taught by our Fathers (the Apostles) in silent Tradition without writing. The Fast of Lent is it not in neglect and derision with Protestants? & yet the 
(5) Hieron. Epist. ad Marcell. de erroribus Montan.  Fathers said as we do, Quadragesiman semel in anno ex Apostolica traditione ieiunamus, we fast one Lent a year by the tradition of the Apostles. Do not Protestants also scorn the feast of Ember-week four times in the year? And yet the 
(6) Leo de ieiunio sexti mensis, & Serm. 6. de Pentecost.  Father's say ex Apostolica traditione seruantur, they are received by Apostolical Tradition. To fast one friday, or the sixth Day of the week in memory of our Saviour's passion Protestant's condemn as superstitious: yet 
(7) Epiphan. haeres. 75.  the Fathers say, hoc decreverunt Apostoli, the Apostles made this decree, and the Church by Tradition from them hath perpetually observed it. The making and blessing of holy water, do not Protestant's reject as magical? Yet the 
(8) Basil. de spir. san. c. 27.  Father's say expressly, it is a Tradition of the Apostles. To mingle water with Wine in the Chalice of the holy Eucharist, is thought by Protestants to be fabulous: But by the Father's 
(9) Cyprian. lib. 1. Ep. 3.  Dominica institutio, the institution of our Lord, by Tradition unwritten derived to us. Luther dareth to cast off with a jest the commandment not to receive the holy Eucharist but fasting, that so the body of our Lord may enter in at our mouth before other meats: 
(10) Aug. Ep. 118 ad januar. c. 6.  yet the Fathers say, hoc placuit Spiritu sancto, & hoc Christus per Apostolos disposuit, it pleased the holy ghost it should be so, and by his inspiration the Apostles did so appoint. What shall I say of 
(11) Aug. lib. 4. in julian. & Leo primus Ep. 14. Exorcizandi sunt secundum Apostolicam regulam.  Exorcisms & Exsufflations used in Baptism? the 
(12) Origen. Homil. 5. in Num. A magno Pontifice Christo, & eius filiis Apostolis traditam.  form of interrogations, answers, and other ceremonies? That 
(13) Fabian. Ep. 2. ad Oriental. Christus instituit.  they that be baptised, be afterwards Chrismed with the oil of balm? 
(14) Tertul. li. 1. ad ux. Apostolica praescriptio. Epiphan. haer. 50. Propter eminentiam celebrationis traditam.  That they who have been married more than once, be not promoted unto Priesthood, out of reverence unto that dignity? 
(15) Aug. lib. 17. de Civit. c. 4. Hoc votum illi potentissimi voverant.  That the Apostles made the vow of Religion's perfection? That 
(16) Chrys. homil. 17. ad Paph. Antiochen. A Christo introducta. Casian. Coenobitarum disciplina tempore praedicationis Apostolorum sumpserat exordium.  Monastical profession began by their institution? 
(17) Tertul. de Corona Militis. Anniversarios' dies colimus.  the keeping festival Days in the honour of Saints deceased? 
(18) Concil. Antioc. Apostol. citat. in 7. Synod. act. 1.  The placing the Images of Christ and his Saints in the Church? 
(19) Damascen. orat. 4. the Imagine Synod. Nicen. 2. act. 7.  Their Worship? 
(20) Aug. Serm. 17. de verbis. Apost. & Cyril. cathec. 5. Mystagog.  To commend ourselves unto the prayers of Saints deceased in the holy Sacrifice of Mass? These things Protestants detest as Superstitions; all which yet the Fathers maintain to be Apostolical Traditions.    metamorphize the word Profitable, as to make it signify the same with the word Sufficient, which is very hard; yet were the text much over-short to prove their intent, that Scripture alone is sufficient for every man, seeing the Apostle speaks not of every man, but expressly of him, who is Homo Dei, the man of God, that is, one already fully instructed, and firmly settled by Tradition in all the main points of Christian faith and godly life, such an one as Timothy was. The Scriptures for men in this manner aforetaught and grounded in faith, are abundantly sufficient, who will deny it? But this proveth at the most the sufficiency of the Scripture, joined with Tradition, not of Scripture alone, or of onely-onely-onely Scripture, as Protestants books in great Letters, very earnestly affirm. Hence also we may conclude, that the 
(z) The Minister to prove Scriptures are clear unto Infidels that have not the Spirit of faith, heaps many testimonies of Fathers, that teach Scriptures in some matters to be clear. Who denies this? they are so to the faithful not unto Infidels, not unto them that are unsettled in the Catholic faith; yea many places he brings, speak expressly only of the faithful & pious, Sicut vera Religio docet accedunt, as S. Augustine & others by him alleged affirm, and therefore are brought impertinently to prove the sufficiency & clarity of Scriptures in respect of Infidels, pag. 34.35.36.  many allegations of Fathers, which Protestants bring to prove the Scripture to be clear in all substantial points, are impertinent, because the fathers speak of men aforehand instructed in all substantial points, who may by the light of Tradition easily discover them in Scripture; as they that hear Aristotle explicate himself by word of mouth may understand his book of nature, most difficile to be understood of them that never heard his explication, either out of his own mouth, or by Tradition of his Scholars.  
I hope I have in the opinion of your most learned Majesty, sufficiently demonstrated this first GROUND of Catholic faith, to wit, That a Christian is originally and fundamentally built upon the word of God, not as written in Scriptures, but as delivered by Tradition of the Church, successively from the Primitive, upon the authority whereof we believe, that both Scriptures, and all other substantial articles of faith, were delivered by the Apostles, thence further ascending, & inferring they came from Christ, and so from God the prime veracity & author of truth.    

THE SECOND GROUND.  

That there is a visible Church always in the world, to whose Traditions men are to cleave. That this Church is One, Universal, Apostolical, Holy. §. 3.  
THIS principle is consequent upon the former, out of which six things may be clearly proved. First, that there is always a true 
(a) The Minister still cometh forth with his distinction that by Church we may understand a Hierarchy of mitred prelate's; & then he denies that there is still a church teaching the truth in the world. Secondly, for a number of believers smaller or greater, teaching and professing the right saith in all substantial points; & then he grants there is still a true Church of Christ in the world. This distinction so much repeated, specially pag. 57 and 58. is impertinent: for by Church we understand not every small number of right believers, but a Christian multitude of such credit and authority, as upon her tradition we may be sure what Scriptures & doctrines were the Apostles. For this is a fundamental point necessary to be known, that so we may know, what Doctrine is of God, and it cannot be known but by Tradition of the Church, as hath been proved. Now whether this Church be Mitred, or not Mitred, go in Black, or in White, or in Scarlet, doth little import. Let the Minister but show us a Church that hath evident Tradition of Doctrine hand to hand from the Apostles, & we will say she is the true Church, though she have no Surplice, or Mitre, but be as precise as Geneva itself: but if there be no Church in the world, but this Hierarchy of Mitred Prelates, whose Tradition hand to hand can assure men which be the Scriptures and doctrines of Religion delivered by the Apostles, men ought not to bear such spleen against a Mitre, or Corner-Cap, or Surplice, as in respect of them to fly from the Church, that only hath Catholic Tradition from the Apostles.  Church of Christ in the world, for if there be no means for men to know that Scriptures, and all other substantial Articles came from Christ and his Apostles, and so consequently from God, but the Tradition of the Church; then there must needs be in all ages a Church, receiving and delivering these Traditions, else men in some age since Christ, should have been destitute of the 
(b) The Minister pa. 59 lin. 15. saith, A corrupt Church may deliver uncorruptly some part of sacred truth, as the Scripture and Creed, by which men may be saved. Answer. We may conceive two ways of delivering an incorrupt text. The one Casual & by chance, and so a corrupt Church, yea a jew, an Infidel, a child may deliver an uncorrupt Copy of the Bible. The other Authentic, assuring the receiver this to be the incorrupt text of the Apostles Scripture, and binding him so to believe. This Authentik and irrefragable Tradition cannot be made by a false Church, erring in her Traditions, as is clear. Now it is necessary to salvation, that men not only Casually have the true Scripture, but must be sure that the text thereof be incorrupt. Therefore there must be still a Church in the world, whose Tradition is Authentic, that is, a sufficient warrant upon which men must believe Doctrines to come from the Apostles.  ordinary means of salvation, because they had not means to know assuredly the substantial Articles of Christianity, without assured Faith whereof no man is saved.  
Secondly, this Church must be always 
(c) The Minister pag. 61. lin. 15 & lin. 26. objects, that in time of persecution the true Church may be reputed an impious sect by the multitude, and so not be known by the notion of True and Holy; nor can her truth be discerned by sense and common reason. I answer. As there are four properties of Church-doctrin, so likewise there are four notions of the Church. The first is to be Mistress of the saving truth. According to this notion the Church is invisible to the natural understanding both of men and Angels. For God only & his Blessed see our Religion to be the truth. The second is to be Mistress of Doctrine truly revealed by secret inspiration. According to this notion (ordinarily speaking) the Church is invisible to almost all men that are, or ever were, the Apostles only and the Prophets excepted. The third, to be Mistress of Doctrine which Christ and his Apostles by their Miraculous preaching planted in the world. According to this notion the Church was visible to the first and Primitive world, but now is not. The fourth to be Mistress of Catholic doctrine, that is, of doctrine delivered and received by full Tradition and profession, all the adversary's thereof being under the name of Christian, divided amongst themselves, and notorious changers. According to this notion the Church is ever visible & sensible to all men, even unto her very enemies. For not only jews and Infidels, but even Heretics know in their conscience, and sometimes acknowledge in words, that the Church is truly Catholic. So long as the Church according to this notion of Catholic is in the sight of the world, the world hath sufficient means of salvation. They that see with their eyes which Religion is Catholic, may easily find out the truth. For it is clear to common reason that the Catholic Doctrine is the Apostles, clear by common discourse that the Apostles miraculous preaching was of God, and that God being the prime verity, his doctrine ought to be received as the truth of salvation. On the other side if the Church according to the notion of Catholic, be hidden, and the light thereof lost, there is no ordinary means left for men to know what the Apostles taught, nor consequently what God by inspiration revealed unto them. We must begin again anew from a second fountain of immediate revelation from God, and build upon the new planting of Religion with miracles in the world by some recent Prophet. And if this be absurd, then there must ever be in the world a Church, whose Tradition is illustriously Catholic, and consequently showing itself to be the Apostles, unto all men that will not be obstinate.  visible and conspicuous. For the Traditions of the Church must ever be famous, glorious, and most notoriously known in the world, that a Christian may truly say with S. Augustine de utilit. cred. c. 17. I believe nothing but the consent of Nations, and countries, and most celebrious fame. Now if the Church were hidden, secret, invisible in any age, than her Traditions could not be Doctrines ever illustriously known, but rather obscure, hidden, Apocryphal. Ergo, the Church the mistress, pillar and foundation of truth must be always visible and conspicuous, which (if need be) may be further proved most evidently.  
Thirdly, that this Church, is Apostolical, and that apparently descending from the Apostolical Sea, by succession of Bishop's 
(d) The Church that hath a lineal succession of Bishops from the Apostles, famous and illustrious, whereof not one hath been opposite in religion to his immediate predecessor, proves evidently that this Church hath the doctrine of the Apostles▪ for as in the rank of 300. stones ranged in order, if no two stones be found in that line of different colour, then if the first be white, the second is white, so the rest unto the last: even so if there be a succession of 300. Bishops all of the same Religion, if the first have the Religion of the Apostles, and of Peter, the second likewise hath the same, and so the rest, even until the last.  usque ad Confessionem generis humani, even to the acknowledgement of humane kind, as S. Augustine l. de vtil. Cred. cap. 17. speaketh: for how could the Tradition of Christian Doctrine be eminently and notoriously Apostolical, if the Church delivering the same, hath not a 
(e) The Minister saith p. 67. circa finem, That this note of succession makes nothing against the Church of England, because their Pastors and Bishops are able to exhibit a pedigree, or derivation both of their ministry and doctrine, from the Apostles. This is ridiculous. For if they can really exhibit such a pedigree and derivation of their faith in all ages from Christ to Luther, why do they still keep us in suspense, and never exhibit the same, which we so earnestly beg at their hands? Let them but name the Church, or Pastor that did commit unto Luther the Ministry of preaching his doctrines against the Roman religion? The Roman Church made him priest, & gave him commission to preach her doctrine; but to preach against her Religion who gave him order? That commission to preach seeing he had it not from any Church as is manifest, he had it either from himself, coining a religion of his own head out of Scripture understood in his own manner, or from Satan with whom he conferred, and unto whose arguments he yielded, as himself doth witness Tom. 7. Wittenberg. fol. 228. or else immediately from God, and then he ought to have made this immediate revelation known by miracles. Let not Ministers therefore idly say, we can exhibit a pedigree, feeding us with words; but afford us present payment of so long an exacted debt. If they know the pedigree of their faith the labour is not great to write the names of their Ancestors in every age. That done they may rest. For if we cannot demonstrate that these their pretended Ancestors were either Catholic Romans, or else opposite one to another in substantial points, and this by as authentic records as they do to prove they held some points of their Religion, the victory shallbe theirs. Is it possible they should thus delude men by saying, we can exhibit, and yet never do it?  manifest and conspicuous pedigree, or derivation from the Apostles? Which is a convincing argument used by the same S. Augustine Epist. 48. circa medium. How can we think that we have received manifestly Christ, if we have not also received manifestly his Church? It is a principle of Philosophy, Propter quod unum quodque tale & illud magis, but the name of Christ, his glory, his virtues, his miracles are to the world famously known from age to age by reason of the Church, & her preaching, who in her first Pastors saw him with their eyes. Ergo, this Church must needs be more famous, more illustrious, as able to give fame, even unto the being, and doctrine, and actions of Christ.  
Fourthly, this Church is One, that is, all the Pastors 
(f) The Minister. pag. 108. lin. 14. allegeth the differences amongst Schoolmen, particularly betwixt dominicans & jesuits, about the manner of explicating the efficacy of Grace, as an argument, that the Roman Church wants unity of faith as much as Protestants. I answer, this is Idle, these differences not being in matters of faith. If Scholmen should preach different doctrines, as matters of faith condemning each other as Heretics, and the Church, this notwithstanding, should allow of both sides as her children, than there should be in the Church disunion in faith. But the Roman Church doth not allow such dissonant Preachers, only she permitteth them to differ in matters they teach, as greater probability, and private opinion. If any preach their private probabilities as Doctrines, and as matters of faith, condemning others as heretics, except they recall their censure, the Roman Church shutteth them out of her communion, not permitting disunion in faith. For such permittance would utterly discredit the authority of her preaching, & show that even in matters of faith she is a Church to be believed no further than seen.  and Preachers thereof deliver, and consequently all her professors and children believe one & the same faith. For if the Preachers and Pastors of the Church disagree about matters which they preach as necessary points of Faith, how can their Tradition and Testimony be of credit therein, or have any authority to persuade? Who will, or can firmly believe disagreeing witnesses upon their words? And this 
(g) By this Note, Protestants are convinced not to be the true Church, for the Protestant Church allows, that dissonant doctrines be preached as her doctrine, as the word of God, as the truth of salvation; she permitteth that her preachers condemn each other as heretics without disclaiming from the communion of either side. For she embraceth in her communion both Lutherans who preach as an article of faith, the carnal manducation of Christ's true body by the wicked, [Luther tom. 3. Germ. fol. 264.] and Caluinists who detest this carnal manducation as blasphemous and impious. [Caluin. admonit. 3. ad Westphalum.] But it is evident that the Church that allows of dissonant preaching in matters of faith, cannot be the true Church. For how can she be the one true Church which allows that doctrine, she knows to be false, be preached as her Religion & the truth of faith? The Protestant Church knoweth, that of contrary doctrines the one side must needs be false. Therefore consenting that both sides be preached as her faith, & as saving truth, she yields that doctrine knownely false, be preached as her doctrine and saving truth, and so is Mistress of falsehood, as much as of truth.  consent must be conspicuous and evident. For if in outward appearance and show, preachers descent one from another in main & material doctrines, their authority is crazed, and their testimony of no esteem; howsoever perchance their dissensions may be by some distinctions so coloured that one cannot 
(h) One cannot convince an obstinate gaynsayer & wrester of words, but still he will wrangle, yet may he be convinced that he doth falsify and wrong authors in his interpretations, and this evidently in the judgement of every indifferent Reader.  convince him, that would boldly undertake to defend, as 
(i) D. Field lib. 3. of the Church cap. 42▪  Doctor Field undertakes for Protestants, that their dissensions be but verbal. But what is this to the purpose? Do the accused dissentioners allow this Doctor's reconciliation? do they give over contention thereupon? No, but profess that such reconcilers miss of their meaning, & that they disagree substantially about the very Prime articles of faith. How can these men be witnesses of credit, for substantial articles concerning which there is open confessed & professed dissension amongst them?  
Fiftly, I infer, that this Church is universal, spread over all nations, that she may be said to be every where 
(k) Morally, that is, according unto common humane reputation, by which a thing diffused over a great part of the world & famously known, is said, to be every where. In this manner the Apostle said that the faith of the Romans was renowned in the whole world, Rom. 1.12. In this sort the Church is still universal and every where. By this is answered all the Minister brings upon mistaking of morally.  morally speaking, being so diffused, that the whole known world may take notice of her, as of a worthy and credible witness of Christian Tradition, howsoever her outward glory and splendour, peace, and tranquillity be sometimes obscured in some places more or less, and not ever in all places at once. A truth so clear, that it may be evidently proved out of 
(l) The text Apocalyps 20.8. saith, They (the Pursevamts of Antichrist) went upon the breadth of the earth, and compassed about the camp of Saints & beloved City: which place proves clearly, that the Church and camp of God shall be spread over the whole breadth of the earth in the days of Antichrist. This verse the Minister mistaketh of purpose, and in lieu thereof citeth the seaventh, and very absurdly saith, that Antichrist shall persecute Christians, that is, put them in prison & kill them where they were not. And Protestants themselves affirm, that even all the days of Antichrist the Church shall be right famous & continue dispersed over the world. Bullinger. in Apocal. 20. Fulke against the Rhem. in Thess. 2. sect. 5. Whitaker answer to M. Reynols' preface. p 34.37.  Scripture, Apoc. 20. v. 8. that even in Antichrists days the Church shall be visibly universal. For she shall then be every where persecuted, which could not be, except she were every where visible & conspicuous, even to the wicked. The reason of this perpetual visible Universality is, because the Tradition of the Church is, as I have proved, the sole ordinary means, on which we ground faith for substantial points. Wherefore this Tradition must be so delivered as it may be known to all men, seeing God 
(m) The Minister saith p. 78. l. 22. That God will have all men saved, according to his antecedent will, citing Schoolmen that say that God's antecedent will is only a velleity, a wish, a complacence; thence concluding that though God have antecedent will that all be saved, yet this doth not infer that he always provides sufficient means for the salvation of all. I answer. That God by his antecedent will of man's salvation wisheth two things. First the salvation of all men: Secondly the means of their salvation. In respect of the means the will of God is absolute, that all men in some sort or other have sufficient means of salvation. In respect of the end, to wit, the salvation of all men, the will of God is not absolute, but as Schoolmen say, virtually conditional, that is, God hath a will that all men be saved as much as lieth in him, if the course of his providence be not stopped, and men will cooperate with his grace. Whence I thus argue. If God did not provide sufficient means for all men, it could not be said, that on his part he wisheth the salvation of all. But even our Minister pag. 78. lin. 38. grants that God wisheth the salvation of all men, and of every individual person. Therefore God still makes his Church visibly universal, ut neminem lateat, as saith S. Augustine, that no man perish through the hiddennes, and invisibility thereof.  will have all men without exception of any nation to be saved, & come to the knowledge of the truth, 1. Tim. 2.4. But if the Church were not still so diffused in the world that all known 
(n) The Answerer writing to his Majesty & knowing the Proverb sapienti verbum, did intent by this word to insinuate how God provided means of salvation for the world, whereof one part was many ages unknown. The solution of this difficulty much urged by the Minister pag. 78 consisteth in these points: first God our Saviour being borne and dying in this known world, provided that his Church should be still visibly spread over the same & famously known. Secondly, Nations be not so unknown, but by navigation and other such natural means they may be discoveuered unto this world where our Saviour was borne, and his Church is ever visible. Thirdly, he still provideth as Experience showeth, that in the firmer members of this his visible Church, such zeal & charity is found that nations can no sooner be discovered, but presently some preachers pass thither with the sound of his Gospel. Fourthly, hence the cause why some nations hear not of the Gospel, is not any defect in his Church, but the want of working in the natural causes to discover such Countries, which defect God will not ever miraculously supply. Fiftly, if the Church were invisible to the world, keeping her Religion to herself, not daring to profess or preach the same unto others, Nations might be discovered, & yet not a whit the nearer in respect of knowing the Gospel. Hence I thus argue. If the Church were hidden for many ages, as Protestants acknowledge theirs was, men should perish, not through defect in the natural causes, but only through the hiddennes, obscurity & wretchedness of the supernatural means, to wit, of the Church not daring to make profession of her Religion to the world. But this is impossible, for then God should not for his part wish the salvation of all men. Therefore it is impossible that the true Church should not be ever universal and notoriously known, & consequently it is impossible, that the Protestant should be the true Church.  nations may take notice of her, all men could not be saved. Sixtly this Church is Holy both in Life & Doctrine. Holy for life, shining in all excellent, and wonderful 
(o) Sanctity to be a sign of the true Church must be on the one side divine and excellent, & on the other external & manifest unto sense; were it not evident unto sense, it could not be a sign; were it not divine, it could not be a sign of a Christian Church, sanctified from the rest of the world. Hence appeareth the idleness of the Minister who pag. 81. rejecting external extraordinary sanctity, makes inward sanctity a sign of the Church, and so he proveth his Church to be Holy, because forsooth she is cleansed by the blood of the lamb etc. This is idle. For how can this inward Sanctity, caused by the blood of the Lamb and inhabitation of the spirit, be a sign of the Church, except it be made known by outward excellent works? Hence our Saviour saith of this sign of sanctity Matth. 7.16. By their fruits you shall know them: and let your light shine before men, that they may see your works. Matth. 5.16. See S. Augustine de utilit. Credendi lib. 17. and his book de moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae.  sanctity, such as the Apostles gave example of, as Poverty, 
(p) 
The Minister pag. 82. lin. 35. saith, that vowed Chastity makes most of our Church more impure than dogs, before God and men. I answer, this is blasphemy. For the breach of vowed Chastity, not the vowing thereof maketh men impure before God. Otherwise who should be more loathsome in his sight than his immaculate mother who vowed Chastity? as the Fathers prove by the Gospel. Luc. 1.34.  
This blasphemy is the same in effect with that of Turks, who say, that the Christian band of chastity to one immaculate bed, forbidding multitude of wives, makes Christians more impure than dogs. Which they prove, because now many thousands of Christians fall into Adultery, Incest, and other impurity, which would not have been had Christ permitted, as Mahomet did, the holy Liberty of many wives which the ancient Prophets enjoyed.  
To this Heretical Turkish accusation of the Catholic Christian Church, I answer: It was convenient that Christ jesus being the Son of God should exact of his followers such sanctity, and chastity as might suit with the perfection of so divine a Lawmaker. And though he knew many thousands would therein be defective, for whom therefore in his mercy he provided the remedy of Penance; yet this failing of some, being but an effect of human frailty, he thought it more tolerable, then that he should allow by his Law such liberty of lust, as was undecent for his sanctity to permit, and unworthy of a people redeemed with his blood, whereby there would have been fewer sinners among Christians, not through strictness of life, but through the looseness of his law.  
In this manner the Church of Christ taught by the spirit of his wisdom, doth, and did ever exact perfect chastity of them that were of her Clergy, though she be sure that in so great a multitude many will fail who must seek to be saved by penance. As adultery in Christians is rather to be suffered then avoided by allowing many wives generally unto Christians, though this be not of itself intrinsically evil: even so the falling of some Votaies is not so great an inconvenience as this were, that Sacred Ministers should not be bound to profess Chastity worthy of the divinity of Christian Priesthood, the sinning against Chastity being humane infirmity, but the not exacting thereof an indignity in the very Christian law.  
For all men not blinded with passion see, it is most undecent that Christian consecrated Ministers should go a wooing and wiving, and when one wife dyeth wed another as often as they please, as the Protestant pretended Holy Ministers use to do. This practice is so evidently unworthy, and against all Christian decency, as they cannot bring one allowed example of a Christian Church in any former age, that did permit liberty of wooing & wiving after Holy Orders, which even the Grecian Church doth detest. Let them therefore consider how theirs can be the Holy Church, that doth not so much as profess high Sanctity that becomes a Christian Church, no not in her consecrated Ministers and more Religious professors. Specially seeing also Ministers by Marriage do not wholly avoid the stain of wand'ring lust and other impurity, yea themselves acknowledge that they be at the least, as vicious as the Catholic Clergy. The sanctity of the Church is not to be measured by the report of zealous complaint against sin, nor is the exaggerated generality thereof to be urged as exact truth, with which kind of stuff our Minister hath most impertinently patched up many pages of his Book, see pag. 82.83.111. & seq. for zealous complaint is Hyperbolical even in holy Scripture, as all know. And if Protestant's be remeasured again by this rule whereby they measure us, they will get the worst. For themselves complain that the world is made WORSE by virtue of their doctrine. [Luther postil. in Dom. 1. Aduent.] &, that sin had NEVER been so rife, but through the rifeness of their Gospel. [Doctor King in jonam, Lecture 45.] that scarce the tenth man of the Ministry is morally honest. [Caluin in pannych. & in comm. 2. 1. Petr. 2.] No not one, but, all be dissolute and lewd, saith Luther Dom. 26. post Trinit. In so much as in regard of this enormous wickedness of their Ministry & Church any man may justly doubt whether they be the true Church, saith Eberus praefat. ad come. Philip. & in 1. ad Corinth.  
This may convince our Minister, that his allegations be of no credit, and that judgement of the Sanctity of a Church, is not to be made by the report of zealous complaint, but by the evidence of sight, ruled by unpartial search. By which rule one may find in the Catholic Clergy thousands, and thousands that show admirable charity, specially in converting Infidels, yea that win the glorious crown of Angelical Chastity, for which they would never have striven, had not the Church bond them thereunto.  
So that, if human infirmity by occasion of this law make some men impure, that otherwise perchance in marriage would have been chaste; so the Grace of God by the same occasion worketh in innumerable Angelical Saints, who had never been such but for the Church's exaction. And this harvest makes full recompense for that loss, specially seeing also many of such delinquents be not lost but saved by Penance, yea become more excellent Saints than they had been had they never fallen.   Chastity, Obedience, Charity, in undergoing labours for the help of souls, Fortitude in suffering of heroical Martyrdoms, Zeal and Patience in the rough and rigorous treaty of their bodies, by miraculous fasting, & another austerityes. This sanctity shineth not in all children of the Church, but in her more eminent preachers & professors. Which kind of sanctity together with miracles, if the Church did want, she could not be a sufficient witness of the truth unto Infidels, who commonly never begin to affect, & admire Christianity, but upon the sight of such wonders of Sanctity, & other extraordinary works. Holy for doctrine, in regard her Traditions be divine and holy, without any mixture of error. For if the Church could deliver by consent of Ancestors, together with truth some Errors, her Traditions, even about truth were questionable, & could not be believed upon the warrant of her traditions; for who can without danger, and securely, feed on that dish that may aswell contain poison, as wholesome sustenance? And whereas some Protestants affirm that the Church cannot err in fundamental points, but only in things of less moment; the truth is, that in perpetual Traditions she cannot err at all. If the Tradition of the Church delivering a small thing as received from the Apostles may be false, one may call into question her Traditions of moment.  
For, like as if we admit in the Scripture errors in small matters, we cannot be sure of its infallibility in substantial matters: So likewise, if we grant Traditions perpetual to be false in things of less importance, we have no solid ground to defend her Traditions as assured in others of moment. Wherefore as he that should say Gods written word is false in some less matters, as when it says, S. Paul left his Cloak at Troas, erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence, which gives occasion to doubt of every thing in Scripture; even so, he that granteth that some part of Traditions, or of the word of God unwritten may be false, erreth substantially, because he giveth cause to doubt of any Tradition, which yet as I have showed, is the prime and originalll ground of Faith, more 
(q) The Minister here raileth largely & lustily terming this assertion impudent, Antichristian, profane, bastardly etc. yet the assertion is evident truth, & his reasons against it are of no force. For they go not against the assertion, but prove another thing, to wit, the excellency of Scripture, which none denies. For Tradition & Scripture according to different comparisons are equal, & superior the one to the other. Compare them in respect of certainty of truth, they are equal, as the Council of Trent defineth sess. 4. both being the word of God, the one Written the other Unwritten, and so both infinitely certain. Compare them in respect of depth, sublimity, and variety of doctrine, the Scripture is fare superior unto Tradition, Tradition being plain and easy doctrine concerning the common, capital, and practical articles of Christianity; whereas the Scripture is full of high & hidden senses, and furnished with great variety of examples, discourses, and all manner of erudition, Aug. Epist. 3. Compare them in respect of priority and evidence of being the Apostles, the Scripture is posteriour unto Tradition in time and knowledge, and cannot be proved directly to be the Apostles & therefore Gods but by Tradition, as sometime not only Fathers but even Protestants afffirme. As Philosophy is more perfect than Logic, and Rhetoric than Grammar, in respect of high & excellent knowledge; yet Logic is more prime, original, fundamental then Philosophy, Grammar, than Rhetoric, without the rules and principles whereof they cannot be learned: Even so Tradition is more prime, and original than Scripture, though Scripture, in respect of depth and sublimity of discourse, be more excellent than Tradition.  fundamental than the very Scripture, which is not known to be Apostolical, but by Tradition: whereas a perpetual Tradition is known to come from the Apostles by its own light. For what more evident, than that that is from the Apostles which is delivered as Apostolical by perpetual succession of Bishops, consenting therein?   

The Propertyes of the Church, proved by Matth. 28.20. §. 4.  
ALL this may be clearly proved (to omit other pregnant testimonies) by the words of our Saviour in the last of S. Matthew, Going into the world, teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to keep all that I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world. A 
(r) 
The Minister pag. 195. lin. 4. saith, that this promise is conditional, in respect of Pastors succeeding the Apostles: to wit, that Christ will assist them conditionally when they teach and baptise as he hath commanded, but that they shall so still teach he doth not promise, p. 24. lin. 28. This exposition is false, first because our Saviour here promiseth his Presence unto the Apostles and their successors to baptise, and teach until the world's end, by one and the same form of speech and individual breath, so that the promise cannot be conditional in respect of the successors, except it be also conditional in respect of the Apostles. But in respect of the Apostles the promise is absolute as the Minister grants pag. 94. lin. 23. Therefore it is also absolute in respect of their successors. Not that this, or that Pastor may not be deceived, but that they shall never deliver by joint consent, any falsehood as the Apostles doctrine.  
Secondly, if the promise be conditional, than the sense is this; I will always assist you to teach & christian aright, when you teach & christian according to my commandment, as the Minister expounds pag. 94. lin. 22. But this sense is idle and just nothing, as if Christ had said, Behold I will assist you to teach aright when you teach aright: for what is to teach Christian Religion aright, but to teach it as Christ commanded, & delivered the same?  
Thirdly, if this Promise were conditional & not absolute, then by this place the Church could not be proved to last absolutely for ever, but only so long as she Christeneth aright & teacheth the truth, wherein according to this Protestant exposition she may fail. But the Fathers from this text gather against the Donatists, that the Church shall never fail to be in all Nations of the world, until the end thereof, as S. Aug. in Psalm. 101. conc. 2. Leo Epist. 3. ad Pulcheriam, and others hence prove. Therefore the sense is absolute, his Church shallbe still in the world, & he still assisting his Church by his spirit to teach and baptise aright.   promise of wonderful comfort unto them, that pawn their souls, & salvation upon God's word delivered by perpetual Tradition; for in this sentence appears the six things I before set down. First, that there is still A Christian Church all days, not wanting in the world, so much as one day till the consummation of the world. Secondly, this Church is ever visible, and conspicuous. For the Church that always teacheth, & Christeneth all Nations, must needs be visible. But this Church always teacheth and Christeneth all Nations, I am always with you, not with you sitting in Corners, or hidden under ground but with you, exercising the office enjoined you in the words precedent Docete omnes gentes, baptizantes. Thirdly, this Church is ever Apostolical, for to his Apostles Christ said, I am always with you to the consummation of the world, not with you in your own persons, but with you in your successors in whom you shall continue until the world's end. Ergo, a lawful company of Bishops, Pastors, & Doctors succeeding the Apostles must be perpetually in the world. fourth, this Church is Universal, Ite in mundum universum, where I will be always with you. Fifthly, this Church is One, not divided into parts, because it teacheth and believeth uniformly all that Christ delivered and commanded, without Factions, Sects, or Parts about matters of faith. Sixtly, this Church is always holy for doctrine, never delivering or teaching any falsehood: I (who am the Truth) am always with you, teaching all nations. Holy also for life, Christ the holy of holyes assisting and making her able to convert Infidels, which she could not well do 
(s) 
The Minister p. 85. & 86.102. allegeth diverse Fathers & scholmen to prove that now miracles are ceased & not necessary. Answer. The Minister should distinguish as the fathers do, who make two manner of beings of Miracles, to wit, ordinary & extraordinary, and affirm three things. First, that in the primitive Church miracles were absolutely necessary for the planting of the Gospel in the world. joan. 5.24. Act. 4.29.30. and then the gift of miracles was ordinarily annexed unto the Ministry of Preaching, yea so that every Christian commonly had that gift in some kind or other. 1. Cor. 12.28. Act. 8.17. & 10. 4.6.  
Secondly, that since the planting of the Gospel by twelve Fishermen, this being the miracle of miracles, no further miracle is absolutely necessary for men unto whom this is known, and therefore the gift of miracles is ceased to be ordinarily annexed to the office of preaching or common to all Christians, as before it was. Aug. de Civit. l. 22. c. 8. Gregor. 27. moral. c. 1.  
Thirdly notwithstanding, in all ages there were, are, and shall ever be some special places and persons extraordinarily endued with the gift of miracles, for the comfort of Christians Conversion of some remote Nations that know not the first miraculous planting of our Religion by certain & celebrious fame: & of miracles in this kind the writings of the Fathers & all Christian histories are full. See S. Aug. l. 22. de Civit. c. 8. & Gregory in his Dialogues.  
THE PROTESTANT CHURCH not before Luther.   without miracles, and tokens of wonderful sanctity, at the least in her more eminent Preachers.   

That the Roman is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolical Church, from, & by which we are to receive the Tradition of Christian Doctrine. §. 5.  
THIS Ground being laid, it is apparent that the Roman Church, that is the multitude of Christians spread over the world, cleaving to the doctrine and Tradition of the Church of Rome, is the only holy, Catholic, and Apostolical Church.  

The first Argument.  
THERE must always be in the world one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolical Church; That is, a Church delivering doctrines uniformly, thereby making them credible; universally, thereby making them famously known to mankind; holily, so making them certain, & such as on them we may securely rely; Apostolically, so making them perpetually flow without change unto the present Christianity in the channel of a never-interrupted Succession of Bishopps from the Apostles. And this Church 
(t) 
Unto this Argument the Minister pag. 104. makes answer, that his Protestant Church was before Luther, in essence & kind, though it began in Luther touching the Name, and some things accidental. In proof whereof he thus writeth: In all ages before Luther some persons held the substantial articles of our Religion, both in the Roman & Grecian Church. And by name the Grecians maintained with us that the Roman Church hath no primacy of jurisdiction above, or over all other Churches; neither is the same infallible in faith. They deny Purgatory, Private Masses Sacrifice for the dead, and they propugne the Marriage of Priests. In this Western part of the world the Waldenses, Thaborites of Bohemia, Wickliffi●ts mantayned the same doctrine in substance, as appeareth by their confession of faith, and by the testimony of some learned Pontificians.  
This being the substance of all the Minister hath said or can say for his Church before Luther, the same is insufficient, false, more for Anabaptists than Protestants. This I prove. In general this pedigree is insufficient for two reasons. First because it is not for all ages. The Grecians were united with the Roman Church until the year 1060. the Waldensians began about the year 1160. Now there remains six or seven ages since the pretended Apostasy of the Roman Church, for which the Minister doth not name any professors that were Protestants for essence and kind. Secondly, because Protestants teach, that the most substantial article of their Religion is justification by special faith only, and not by works and merits of grace, as all know. But these pretended professors, namely the Waldenses & Wickliffists held rigorously the merit of works. In so much as Wickliff said, Let every man confide in his merits, for which saying he is refuted by the Catholic author Thomas Waldensis Tom. 3. c. 7.8.9.  

Grecians no Protestants in Essence.  
In particular the Pedigree is notoriously false in respect of the Grecians who cannot without impudence be named as Protestants, according to essence and kind. First, they hold damnable heresies and substantial errors in the judgement of Protestants, so wit Invocation of Saints, Adoration of Images, as they profess in their Censure sent unto Protestants, and by them printed, Respons. 2. De Inuocatione Sanctorum. They defend Transubstantiation, ibid. resp. 1. c. 13. Communion in one kind for the sick, Gilbert. Genebrard de ritibus Graecorum. Secondly, concerning primacy of jurisdiction, they hold that Christ did institute Monarchical primacy in Peter, Theophilact. in cap. 21. joan. That the Roman Bistop for many ages lawfully succeeded Peter in this Primacy, Ignatius Constantinopolitan. Epist. ad Nicolaum primum. That the Roman Bishop lost this primacy for holding the Procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Son, & that therefore this primacy is now in the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Constant. apud Sigeb. in Chron. an. 1064. Is this Protestancy in substance? Thirdly it is great indiscretion, (I speak with the least) to affirm as our Minister doth, that the Grecians deny sacrifice for the dead, with which doctrine no author Catholic or Protestant ever charged them. And they in their foresaid censure resp. 1. c. 12. profess the contrary, saying, We hold that by the sacrifice of the Mass and almsdeeds the dead are relieved; yea Doctor Field Appendix part. 1. pag. 30. accuseth some of them for holding Sacrifice not only for them that died in penance with sins of infirmity, but also for them that died in damnable state. Finally concerning marriages of Priests, they hold that such as are married before Holy Orders may still keep company with their wives, which the Church of Rome alloweth in them. But the Protestant liberty of marrying after Holy Orders, & that not only once, but if their wives dye, twice, thrice, yea as often as they please; This the Grecians detest in the foresaid Censure, Resp. 1. c. 21. So that the Minister was in great penury of Professors before Luther that is forced to name Grecians as Protestants according to kind. For he might aswell have named the Pope himself.   

Waldenses not Protestants, for Essence and Kind.  
Concerning the Waldenses, they were not Protestants according to kind, but rather Anabaptists, unto whom Protestants are so unkind as they burn them as Heretics. They were not Protestants; For (as all report, as may be seen in Illyricus Catal. Test. pag. 1498.) the most essential doctrine of the Waldenses was their extolling the merit of voluntary poverty, preaching the same so rigorously, as they held all Ministers to be damned that have rents and possessions, and that the Church perished under Sylvester and Constantine through the poison of temporal goods which Cleargymen then began to enjoy (as they said) against the Law of God. I am sure none that know Protestants will think this doctrine of poverty and giving away all to the poor to be the Essence, or so much as an Accidence of their Religion. In respect of this their head-heresy about Poverty, the Waldenses are named the Poormen of Lions, and were said by Reynerius cited by the Minister pag. 130. to have been ever since Silvester or the Apostles, and that they were much applauded in the world, to wit, (as I said) only in regard of this Heresy about poverty, held anciently by the Heretics termed Apostolici, not in respect of other errors or doctrines wherein they agree with Protestants. And so Protestants labour in vain by Waldensians, and the Apostolici, to bring their pedigree from the Apostles.  
Besides, the Waldensians held these anabaptistical errors, which are set down by Illyricus in Catalogo Testium pag. 1502. & seq. out of Reynerius an author of those times whom he terms candidum & sincerum, sincere and unpartial; That children are not to be baptised, baptism being of no use for them, seeing they do not believe; That there is no difference betwixt Bishopps and Priests, nor betwixt Laymen and priests; That the Apostles were mere Laymen; That every Layman that is virtuous, is priest may consecrate, preach, administer Sacraments. That a woman pronouncing the words in the vulgar tongue doth consecrate; yea transubstantiate bread into the body of Christ; That it is mortal sin to swear in any case; That the Magistrates secular and Ecclesiastical being in mortal sin, lose their office, and that no man is to obey them. Indeed Illyricus pag. 1514. & 1525. in fine saith, that this last error is falsely laid to the charge of the Waldensians by Reynerius: which he proves, because AEneas Silvius in his Catalogue of their doctrine makes no mention of this. But he is grossly deceived two ways. First because Reynerius living in that time, and being Inquisitor could know their errors better than Silvius. Nor can we suspect his fidelity being as Illyricus doth acknowledge sincerus & candidus, sincere and unpartial towards Waldensians. Secondly, AEneas Silvius in his Catalogue set down by Illyricus even in that very pag. 1525. a little before the middle, chargeth the Waldensians expressly with this doctrine against Magistracy: Qui mortalis culpae reus sit, eum neque Saeculari neque Ecclesiastica dignitate potiri, nec parendum ei esse. Finally the Waldensians held it not necessary to profess their faith, yea that they might deny it, go to Mass, celebrate and do outward acts of Idolatry. This even Illyricus pag. 1508. doth acknowledge to have been a fault in them, but he saith they may have been saved by repentance. This is an idle shift, for how could they repent themselves of that which they held not to be sin? How could they be the true Church, wherein salvation is found, who held such damnable doctrine, as if they did not repent themselves thereof, they are certainly damned: so that it is extreme beggary in Protestants to beg of these Beggars of Lions, to be their Professors for the time before Luther, who were even by Protestant acknowledgement, much more poor and void of true religion, then of temporal wealth.   

That Protestants not being able to clear themselves to be the visible Church, do vainly appeal unto Scripture for their doctrine.  
The Minister not trusting to the former answer, and feeling in conscience that it is impossible that Protestants should show their Church to have been visible before Luther, saith pag. 105. That this notwithstanding if Protestants be able to demonstrate by Scripture, that they maintain the same faith and Religion which the Apostles taught, this alone is sufficient to prove them to be the true Church.  
I answer, they that cannot by marks of the Church set down in Scripture clear themselves to be the visible Church, do idly appeal to Scripture in respect of doctrine; & their promises to show the particular points of their Religion by Scripture are idle. This I demonstrate by 3. Arguments.  
First, either Scriptures can clear & end all controversies of Religion, or they cannot. If they cannot, appealing unto them hath no other end, but that contention may be without end. If they can clear all controversies, than they can clear the controversy which is the true Church, showing marks and signs whereby the same may be clearly known. And if they can clear this controversy, them it is reason this be cleared in the first place. For as Protestants acknowledge the particular examination of doctrines is tedious and long, not for the capacity of all, whereas the finding out of the true Church endeth all controversyes, seeing we may securely follow her directions and rest in her judgement. [Field Epist. dedicat.  
Secondly, what more idle and vain then to appeal from Scripture, setting down matters clearly, unto Scripture teaching things obscurely or not so clearly? what is this but to appeal from light to darkness, or at the least from noon day to twilight? But no particular point of doctrine is in holy Scripture so manifestly set down as is the Church, & the marks whereby the same may be known; no matter about which the Scriptures are more copious and clear, then about visibility, perpetuity, amplitude the Church was to have; so that as S. Augustine saith, Scriptures are more clear about the Church then even about Christ. [in Psalm. 30. contion. 2.] That Scripture in this point is so clear, that by no shift of false interpretation it can be avoided; the impudence of any forehead that will stand against this evidence, is confounded. [de unit. Eccles. c. 5.] That it is prodigious blindness not to see which is the true Church. [Tract. 1. in 1. Epist. joan.] That the Church is the tabernacle placed in the Sun, that it cannot be hidden unto any, but such as shut their eyes against it. [l. 2. cont. Petilian. c. 32.] What vanity then is it for Protestants not being able to clear by Scripture the clearest of all points, to appeal unto the proving of their doctrine by more dark or less evident places?  
Thirdly, if no man can directly know which be the Scriptures the Apostles delivered but by the Tradition of the Catholic Church, than it is vain before they decide this controversy to undertake to prove by Scriptures what doctrine the Apostles taught. For how can Scripture make me know what the Apostles taught, unless I know aforehand the Scriptures to be the Apostles? I may see this, or that doctrine delivered in the Scripture, shown me as the Apostles, but I cannot know that doctrine to be the Apostles, except I know aforehand the book to be the Apostles, but this cannot be proved but by the Tradition of the Church.  
I omit many other arguments whereby this shift may be convinced to be but flying from the light of God's word about the visible Church. For as, saith Saint Augustine l. 1. contra Crescon. cap. 33. God would have his Church to be described in Scripture without any ambiguity, as clear as the beams of the Sun, that the controversy about the true Church, being clearly decided, when questions about particular doctrines that are obscure, arise, we might fly to her, and rest in her judgement, & that this visibility is a manifest sign whereby even the rude and ignorant may discern the true Church from the false. [Augustine l. 13. cont. Faust. c. 13.]    must either be the Roman, or the Protestant, or some other opposite unto both. Protestants cannot say a Church opposite unto both, for than they should be condemned in their own judgement, and bound to conform themselves to that Church, which can be no other but the Grecian; a Church holding almost as many (if not more) doctrines which Protestant's dislike than doth the Church of Rome, as I can demonstrate if need be. It is also most manifest, & undeniable, that Protestants are not such, nor part of such a Church since their Revolt and separation from the Roman, seeing confessedly they changed their doctrines they once held, forsook the body whereof they were members, broke off from the stock of that tree whereof they were branches. Neither did they departed from the Roman & join themselves with any Church professing their particular doctrines dissonant from it. Ergo, the Roman is the one, holy, Catholic, & Apostolical Church.   

The second Argument.  
THIS also plainly will appear to any man of understanding that will cast on the Roman Church an unpartial eye. For she is most evidently Apostolical, having most glorious succession of Bishops & Pastors famous in all 
(x) 
The Minister p. 116. lin. 9 saith, that it is inconsequent to infer negatively from humane history, & to say histories are silent, & therefore no such matter. I answer. Hence one may feel even with his hand, what an unconsequent, and absurd Religion theirs is, which cannot stand without denying principles evident in common reason, & received by consent of mankind: for who doth not feel that to argue from humane history thus negatively they are silent, Therefore there never was any such matter, is many times convincing and strong? This some Protestants more judicious than our Minister, acknowledge, who thus write: It is most plain that even negatively an argument from humane authority may be strong, as namely this: The Chronicles of England mention no more than only six Kings bearing the name of Edward since the time of the last Conquest, therefore it cannot be there should be more. It is true, men are ignorant, many things may escape them, they may be deceived, they may conceal truth, or utter untruth out of malice, they may forget what they know; Howbeit INFINITE CASES are wherein all these impediments are so MANIFESTLY excluded, as there is no show or colour whereby any such exception may be taken. Thus M. Hooker Eccles. Policy pag. 115. & 116.  
Now, amongst these cases wherein the negative argument from Tradition and history is strong, the chiefest is when the matter is famous and illustrious, and there is a line and succession of chief Bishops, Princes, & Persons notoriously known even to the particularityes of their names, actions, days of their reign, and death. Wherefore it is idle what the Minister pag. 230. brings against this, that we know not who was the first that eat man's flesh, nor when the Assyrian matrons did first prostitute themselves in the temple of Venus. For no wonder we know not such things, seeing we have not a lineal history of these times, as we have of other times, specially since the coming of Christ. For lineal history concerning illustrious matters is both affirmatively & negatively strong, yea more strong negatively then affirmatively. The reason is, because it is not so impossible that men with full report should vent an untruth, as that they should be by full consent silent about a most illustrious truth, men being in such cases more prone to report then to conceal. For example, should one contest that some of our Kings since the Conquest set up Images in all Churches of England, the Country being before that time pure Protestant, might not such an impudent writer be convinced of madness by negative history? And why? But, because there is a most notorious line of our Kings since the last Conquest, and their names, actions, days of their reign, and deaths most famously known. In the same manner there being a line of Popes so conspicuously known, as nothing more, from Peter unto Vrban they eight, what impudence is it for Protestants to affirm, that Rome was pure Protestant for the first five or six hundred years, and that afterward the Pope changed Protestancy into Papacy, brought in Images, Invocation of Saints, Auricular Confession, Adoration of the Sacrament, and the like horrible noveltyes and changes of the whole world, which could not but have been noted, if they had been novelties; whereas all histories be silent herein, yea they mention the contrary, to wit, how Popes ever resisted them that would have innovated about these points.   monuments of history and antiquity, who were 
(y) What the Minister here saith pag. 116. that the Pharisees did say as we do, that they had their Traditions by succession from Moses, urging our Saviour, that he could not prove by history that they had changed their faith, and our Saviour leaving History refuted them by Scripture; this is a figment of his own head, out of mere desire to make the Pharisees seem like to us, and himself to our Saviour: for where doth he read that Pharisees so pleaded against our Saviour? and what blasphemy to think, that our Saviour could not have refuted them by History, had they so pleaded, showing where, when, and by whom they began? The truth is, the Pharisees pretended not their observations, as succession's hand to hand from Moses, but as Traditions of their own. Some they urged as deductions from the Scripture, which they (Protestant-like) did pretend to understand better & more rigorously than any before them: such was their doctrine against healing diseased persons, & doing small labours, as gathering ears of corn on the Sabbath day, much like our Protestant Sabba●arians; other they taught as singular inventions of Piety and Religion found out by themselves, for the more exact observance of the Law, some of which Inventions were impious, some frivolous, some pious and therefore allowed by our Saviour, as that of paying tithes unto God out of every little herb, a tradition of their owne not commanded in the Law, and yet approved by our Saviour as binding, This you ought to have done, and not to have omitted that other. [Luc. 11.42.] they are rebuked for observing their otherwise pious inventions for vain glory, covetousness, & for preferring small matters, because they were their own, above the precepts of Gods Law. All this is evident unto them that are conversant in the Gospel.  never noted, as delivering contrary doctrines the one to the other.  
Apparently Universal, 
(z) The Christians called the Chaldaean Assyrians, the jacobites, or Cophtis, the Georgians, the AEthiopians, or Abyssines, the Thomaeans in India, the armenians specially those termed Franc-Armenians, Maronits, are united with the Roman Church & have often & lately made their obedience unto the Pope, & professing to hold in all points the Catholic Roman faith: as you may see in Notitia Episcopatuum 〈◊〉 Miraei lib. 1. c. 16.17.18.  spread over the world, with credit and authority, that whole mankind may take notice of her doctrine for the embracing thereof.  
Conspicuously 
(a) The Minister pag. 107. saith, that it is not enough to prove we have unity, but we must prove we have unity in verity, for the Turks have unity, and yet have not verity. I answer. That the unity and consent of a grand diffused multitude spread over the world in the Tradition of Ancestors about Religion, doth evidently reduce Religion to the first external author, & publisher, & the credit of his word. The unity & consent of Mahometans in their Tradition from Mahomet proves their Religion to be Mahomet's, and consequently in the judgement of Christians the Religion of a false Prophet: Our unity and consent in the Christian Tradition of our Ancestors from Christ, proves evidently our Religion to be of Christ, and consequently divine and true, as certainly as it is certain that Christ jesus was the Messenger of God, and God the Author of truth. So that the unity of the Roman Church proves directly her Religion to be Christ's, and then by consequence to be divine verity.  One, the Professors thereof agreeing in all points of faith, howsoever they differ about small vndefined questions.  
Most manifestly Holy in all kind of high and admirable sanctity, giving notorious signs and tokens thereof, striking 
(b) What the Minister here brings out of some zealously complaining against vice, is already by us answered, & was long ago by S. Aug. de utilit. cred. c. 5. where he nameth these sanctityes as signs of the Church, Continentia usque ad tenuissimum victum panis & aquae, non solùm quotidiana sed & per contextos plures dies continuata ieiunia: Castitas usque ad coniugij prolisue contemptum: Patientia usque ad cruces flammasue neglectas: Liberalitas usque ad patrimonia distributa pauperibus. Thus S. Augustine, adding: Few I grant in the Church do these things, in respect of the other multitude, and fewer do them well▪ & prudently, yet the people, approve, applaud, love, admire them, and accuse themselves they cannot do the like, so rising up towards God by these examples.  admiration into carnal men, that are not altogether profane, and diffusing abroad the sweet odour of Christ and the Christian Name. In which proof that these properties agree to the Roman, and be wanting in the Protestant Church, I will not enlarge myself as I otherwise might, aswell not to weary your Majesty, as also not to seem to diffide (the matter being most clear) of your Majesty's judgement. Wherefore it is more than clear that the Roman is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolical Church, by whose Tradition Christian Religion hath been, is, and shall be ever continued from the Apostles, to the world's end.   

The third Argument.  
PROTESTANTS have the Holy Scriptures delivered unto them by, and from the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolical Church. But they received them from no other Church than the Roman. Ergo, the Roman is the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolical Church.  
The Mayor I prove. If Protestants have not the Text of Scripture by, and from the one, holy, Catholic & Apostolical Church they cannot be certain they have the true incorrupt text the Apostles delivered, and recommended as divine, to the first Christians, seeing the Tradition of any other Church is fallible 
(c) The Minister pag. 119. objecteth against this, that if we cannot be sure of the Scripture except the immediate deliverer thereof be infallible, than we cannot be sure except we have the Scripture immediately from the hand of the Pope, or general Council who only are infallible. Answer. We must (as Theology teacheth) distinguish immediationem suppositi, & immediationem virtutis, that is the immediate person which delivers Scripture, and the immediate authority upon the credit whereof Scripture is delivered. The person immediately delivering may be a single Minister fallible taken solely by himself, but the immediate authority that delivers Scripture is ever, and must still be infallible, to wit, the authority of the Church's Tradition. For we neither must nor can believe firmly any Minister of the Catholic CHURCH, affirming a book to be Scripture until we see clearly that he delivers therein the consent of the Catholic Church, which then is evident unto us, when we see him preach it freely and openly, and no Pastor to contradict him therein.  & may deceive. And if it may deceive, how can they be certain that they are not deceived, seeing they themselues lived not in the Apostles days, nor saw with their own eyes what copies the Apostles delivered. But Protestants, as they pretend, be certain that they have the true incorrupt Apostolical text of Scripture. Ergo, they have it upon the authority of the holy, Catholic, Apostolical Church.  
Now the Minor that they have the Scripture from the Roman is apparent: for what other Church did deliver unto Luther the text of the Bible, assuring him that they had it by Tradition from Ancestors time out of mind, as given originally by the Apostles? Which is accordingly acknowledged by 
(*) Whitaker. l. 3. de Ecclesia. p. 369.  M. Whitaker & 
(d) M. Dove in his persuasion.  others, but particularly by 
(e) Luther contra Anabap. ton. 7. German. jen. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum, sacram Scripturam etc. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus? Thus Luther, showing that Protestants receive the Scripture not only from the Roman Church, but also upon her authority & word.  Luther himself. Ergo, the Roman Church is the one, holy Catholic, Apostolical Church whose Tradition doth deliver infallibly unto us the text of Scripture: And if the true Apostolical Text then also 
(e) Luther contra Anabap. ton. 7. German. jen. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum, sacram Scripturam etc. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus? Thus Luther, showing that Protestants receive the Scripture not only from the Roman Church, but also upon her authority & word.  the true Apostolicell sense. This I prove: if the Apostles did not deliver the bare Text, but together with the Text, the true 
(f) We do not say, that the Apostles did deliver the true sense of all their Scriptures, making a large and entire commentary of all difficil texts, as the Minister cavilleth pa. 121. but only, that together with the text they delivered the sense, about the main and most principal points; & this sense thus delivered by Tradition with the text, is to be admitted as religiously and reverently as the text.  sense of Scripture to be delivered perpetually unto posterity, than they who by Tradition rereive from the Apostles the true Text, must together receive the true sense. But, as 
(g) Chemnit. in exam. Concil. Trid. part. 1. fol. 74. D. Bancroft in the Survey▪ pag. 379.  principal Protestants affirm, No man doubteth but the Primitive Church received from the Apostles, and Apostolical men, not only the text of Scripture, but also the right and native sense Which is agreeable to the doctrine of 
(h) Vincentius Lyrinen. cap 2.  the Fathers, that from the Apostles together with the text descends the line of Apostolical interpretation, squared according to the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense.  
Whereupon S 
(i) Aug. de utilit. Creden. c. 14.  Augustine argueth, that they that deliver the text of Christ's Gospel must also deliver the exposition; affirming, that he would sooner refuse to believe Christ, then admit any interpretation contrary to them, by whom he was brought to believe in Christ. For they that can deliver by uniform Tradition a false sense, why may they not also deliver a false text, as received from the Apostles? An argument convincing, and 
(k) 
Though the Minister pag. 123. storm at this confidence of his Adversary in terming it unanswerable, yet by deeds he confirms the saying to be true in not answering, but changing the force thereof quite another way, saying: It is this: The text of the Scripture may be as easily corrupted as the sense. Ergo, All they which can deliver by uniform Tradition a false sense, may also deliver a false text. In this argument he denyeth the antecedent or assumption. I answer. First, as I said, the argument is perverted, and the medium, or means of proof changed; for there is great difference betwixt Being as easy, &, Being as possible, seeing a thing may be as possible as another, and yet not so easy. That ten men should conspire to deceive me, is not so easy as that three should so conspire, as is evident; Yet it is as possible as the other, because no reason can be brought to prove that three may so conspire, that proves not that also ten may do the like. In the same manner though we should grant the sense may be more easily mistaken by the Church than the text, yet it is as possible, that the Church be mistaken in the sense: Because no reason proves that uniform Tradition can be mistaken in the sense, that proves not that it is possible that the Church may be mistaken in the text, though perchance not so easily. Now, if the Church in her uniform Tradition may be mistaken about the text, then is not Tradition a sufficient ground of infallible persuasion that the text is the Apostles, and so faith is overthrown, which hath no other ground to know assuredly the incorrupt Scriptures delivered by the Apostles but Tradition, as hath been proved.  
Secondly it is false, that the sense and doctrine of Scripture concerning main and substantial articles of faith, may be sooner corrupted, and a false sense persuaded to the Church, than a false text. The reason is manifest, because millions of Christians know by Tradition the doctrine of Scripture about main points, that know not all the texts by which the same is proved, yea perchance truly & certainly not so much as one. For example the doctrine, that there are Three Divine Persons, and One God, is so engraven in the hearts of all, even simple Christians, as you may sooner pull out their hearts, then make them believe that this is not the Christian faith: whence no man can deny the Trinity, but he is presently noted by al. On the other side this text 1. joan. 5.7. whereby the Trinity is proved, There be three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one, millions do not know, and so it is more easy to take from Christians this text than the doctrine thereof. And the same reason is of any other text, the texts being still commonly fare more unknown than the doctrine of the Creed, & such substantial points.   unanswerable.   

The fourth Argument.  
MY fourth proof I gronnd upon a Principle most certain, and set down by 
(*) In the sum of the Conference before his Majesty p. 75.  your Gracious Majesty, That the Roman Church was once the mother Church, and consequently the one, holy, Catholic, Apostolical Church, all other Churches being her daughters; and that she is not to be forsaken further than it can be proved that she departed from herself, that is, from the mother & original doctrines delivered by the Apostles.  
But she cannot 
(l) 
Hear the Minister pag. 128. again repeateth his saying, that negative arguments from humane history are unconsequent: which his saying, as hath been showed, is against the consent of mankind. His arguments against this ground of perpetual Ecclesiastical Tradition known by notorious fame of history, are by him named four but the fourth contains four branches, and so they are eight, which I will set down & answer. First it is not absolutely necessary that the humane history of all matters should be composed. Answer. There being a clear lineal succession of Princes and Prelates from the Apostles famously & particulrely known, it is impossible but that historical Tradition either written or unwritten should deliver most notoriously the substantial matters of fact done since that time. These matters are such, as cause great changes in the world; as in Civil affairs, the setting up, the pulling down, and changing of renowned Kingdoms & States: ●n the affairs of the Church, the beginnings of Religion, the most famous Pastors thereof, the conversions of great Nations, the springing up of heresies & potent sects, their prevailing, their being resisted, their overthrow, and commonly also the names of their principal & renowned Patrons; ●hese illustrious things, when there is particular Tradition even to the very names of persons, can not be hidden. Secondly, when history is written, it causeth only humane faith. Answer. Humane history made by mere human writers and preachers concerning humane and natural things breeds only human faith, but Ecclesiastical Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles made by the Pastors of the Church, consecrated to that end by the holy Ghost delivering divine revealed things being infallible, breeds not only human Faith, but is elevated by the concurrence of divine Authority towards the production of Divine Faith, as hath been said.  
Thirdly, histories may totally perish and be suppressed, or corrupted by the enemies of truth. Answer. Concerning substantial renowned matters which are known not only by report but also by their permanent effects, it is impossible that fame and Tradition should be suppressed or corrupted, so long as there is a visible Church in the world. For example; Arius his doctrine, Luther's occasion of changing from the Roman Church, King Henry's breach with the Pope, and the cause thereof, can never be suppressed by the enemies of truth, so long as there shallbe a famous Christian Church in the world, though about this or that circumstance that are not so notorious, questions are moved, and new may arise.  
Fourthly, history may be repugnnant to history. Answer. This cannot be about the substance of the narration when the matters thereof are in manner aforesaid illustrious, to wit, when they are not only declared by full report, but also declare themselves by effects, though in circumstance there may be variety of reports.  
Fiftly, even the Papists teach that the principal monuments of antiquity, to wit, the ancient Counsels have not been faithfully preserved. Answer. Ancient General Counsels concerning the substance of their definitions which they ●id principally intent, are, and ever were famously known, yea Tradition hath made the fame of them immortal and incorruptible, so long as a visible professing Church shall be in the world. Heretics may endeavour to misreport and corrupt Counsels, as also they do Scriptures; but ●hey never could prevail as concerning any substantial matter.  
Sixtly, many things suppositious have been added to the works of the ancient, 〈◊〉 bastardly books pass under the titles of Fathers. Answer. As though also there have not been many suppositious books urged as Scripture by Heretics, to wit the gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Bartholomew? Do not the most ancient Fathers, namely the Council of Carthage, & S. Augustine receive some books of Scripture to the number of 12. which Protestants partly Caluinists, partly Lutherans reject? Must we therefore refuse trial by Scripture? No: It is sufficient that we have by most certain Tradition innumerable works that are undeniably ancient, though question be moved about some, which therefore cannot be urged till they be known to be ancient.  
Seaventhly, the Papists being a part, purge & alter such records. Answer. This is untruth, we purge not any of the books of the ancient, as any may see with his eyes that will take the pains to read our Index Expurgatorius, set forth by the Protestant junius, and compare the Expurgations with the books.  
Eightly, the Papists despise and contemn Historians, as Eusebius, Sozomen, Socrates, when they are against their Tenet. Answer. When good Historians do not agree, the matter cannot be certain, but must be decided by coninecture; which doth never hap about the substance of famous facts that by effects made themselves notorious to the world. When historians are singular they may be rejected, specially when the authors are otherwise heretics, and the narrations wherein they be singular, favour their heresies.  
Thus Eusebius being an Arrian, is not trusted in some narrations against others historians, concerning Constantine, that seem to favour Arrianisme. Socrates, and Sozomen being Novatians are not easily credited in singular narrations in the behalf of their Sect: Though as I said, concerning matters & illustrious facts which make themselves evident to mankind by effects, as are the changing of Christian Religion over the world, resistance made against all open and notorious sects, and who were the resisters, who the resisted, such difference is never found about substance but only in circumstance. And only this Tradition of the Church concerning these kinds of notorious matter which is as clearly Apostolical as the sun is bright at Noon day, we make the ground of our belief, that our Roman Religion hath not been changed since the Apostles.   be proved to have changed her doctrine since the Apostles by any monuments of History or Antiquity; yea the contrary in my judgement may be most evidently proved in this sort.  
The doctrines that were for diverse ages universally received in the Christian Church, and no time of their beginning is assignable, must be doctrines unchanged coming from the Apostles. But it is most clear, & 
(m) Because this matter is stiffly (not to say outfacingly) denied by the Minister pa. 129. & 134. behold the very words of Protestants. D. Hutterus, Luther's successor in the chair of Wittenberg, de sacrificio Missatico pag. 377. I willingly acknowledge that the Roman Idolary, whose pith is the sacrifice of the Mass, did occupy in manner the whole world, specially for the last thousand years. Hospinian the successor of Zwinglius in his chair & superintendency, Hist. Sacram. pa. 1. pag. 157. In the age of Gregory the Great (that is more than a thousand years ago) all manner of popish Idolatry & superstition, as a main sea, overwhelmed and drowned in manner the whole world, no man making resistance against it. Simon de Voyol a Genevian Minister and of Caluins' school, in his Catalogue of Doctors, in his Epistle to the Reader, saith: In the year 605. (more than a thousand years ago) falsehood prevailed, and then was the whole world overwhelmed in the dreggs of Antichristian filthiness, abominable Traditions, and superstitions of the Pope. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed pag. 307. & 400. saith: During the space of Nine hundred years the Popish Heresy hath spread itself over the whole world, and for many hundred years an universal Apostasy overspread the whole face of the earth, so that our Protestant Church was not then visible to the world. M. Fulke treatise against Stapleton and Martial pag. 25. The Pope hath blinded the world these many hundred years, some say 900. some 1000 some 1200. Master Napier Revelat. pag. 64. & 101. The Antichristian and Papistical reign began about the year 316. after Christ, reigning universally without debatable contradiction, God's true Church abiding certainly bidden and latent.  confessed by the Protestant's, whose testimonies plentiful in this behalf, if need require, shall be brought. First, that the doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse, have been universally received for many ages, a thousand years at least, ever since Boniface the third. Secondly that Protestants cannot tell the time when the Church of Rome began to change, and deviate from the Apostolical doctrine delivered by succession. Ergo, the Roman Church never changed her faith, so that her doctrines are to be received as Apostolical, if the Mayor of the first argument be true, to wit, that 
(n) The Minister pag. 15. saith, The jesuite conveyeth into S. Augustins proposition certain words to wit, doctrines universally received etc. which are not found in S. Augustine; for this Father did never allow that the universal Church believe any doctrine of faith not commanded in Scripture. I answer. The words of S. Augustine will discover the Minister what he is, for these they are formally, in the place cited by the jesuite l. 5. de baptis. c. 23. Many things are Held by the Universal Church, & therefore are TRULY believed to have been COMMANDED by the Apostles, though they be NOT WRITTEN. Thus he. And though there be no doctrine which may not be in some sort proved by Scripture, and derived from thence by consequence, yet this Logical Deduction doth not suffice to make doctrines to be universally matters of faith, except they be also delivered expressly by Tradition, or the word of God unwritten, as hath been often showed in this Rejoinder.  doctrines universally received, whose beginning are not known are to be believed as Apostolical. And what more true, this being a principle set down by S. Augustine lib. 4. the Baptism. cont Donat. c. 6. & lib. 5. cap. 23. allowed by Doctor Whitguift late Archbishop of Canterbury [Defence pag. 351. & 352.] who in his book written by public authority against Puritans, citing diverse Protestants as concurring in opinion with him, saith, Whatsoever opinions are not known to have begun since the Apostles time, the same are not new or secundary, but received their original from the Apostles. But because this principle of Christian Divinity brings in (as M. Cartwright there alleged speaketh) all Popery in the judgement of all men, I will further demonstrate the same, though of itself clear enough.  
The spirit of Christ, or Christ by his spirit being still with the Church, cannot permit errors in faith so to creep into the church, as they grow irreformable even by the principles of christianity▪ but if errors could so creep into the church as their beginning could not be known since the Apostles, and never be espied till they be universally received, than error could so creep into the Church & prevail that by the principles of christianity they are irreformable. This I prove, because errors 〈◊〉 
(o) The Minister saith, that the errors of the Pharisees were universally received in the jewish Church, and yet reform by our Saviour. I answer. First his desire to make our Religion like the Pharisees makes him fashion unto the Pharisees a Religion of his own head as if he had never read the Gospel. For the Traditions of the pharisees were certain practices of piety invented by themselves, & deducted by their skill from Scripture, whereby they would seem singularly religious, & non sicut caeteri hominum. Secondly, Christ jesus proving himself to be true God might reform errors universally received, & the Church of the jews falling, erect a new Church of Christians as he did. But this is lawful for no man, either before or since. For Christian Religion must continue until the world's end, by virtue of the first Tradition thereof, never interrupted without extraordinary and Prophetical beginning, by immediate revelation & miracles; and so if errors be delivered by the full consent of Christian Tradition, they are irreformable.  irreformable by the Principles of christianity, when whosoever undertakes 〈◊〉 reform them, is by the Principles of christianity to be condemned as an Heretic. But he that will undertake to reform doctrines universally received by ●he church, opposeth against the whole Church, and therefore is by the most recea●ed and known principle of Christianity, and Christ's own direct precept to be accounted as an 
(p) The Minister saith, that one man may oppose the whole Church and oppugn her errors by Scripture, and not be as an Heathen or Heretic. For not every one that opposeth the Church, is to be accounted an Heathen, but only such as in ordinately and without just cause oppugn it. Thus he pag. 136. I answer. By this doctrine every particular man is made examiner of the whole Church and her judge, and Hellish Confusion brought into Christendom. If against the sentence of perpetual universal Tradition a private man may, without Heresy, pretend Scripture & stand stiffly therein, and though the Church give seeming, & appearing answers unto his Scriptures, yet condemn her, saying, these answers are sophistical, as our Minister doth p. 581. what can be more disorderly? or what is heretical obstinacy if this be not? Wherefore S. August. epist. 48. saith absolutely, it is impossible men should have just cause to departed and impugn the whole Christian Church, adding, nos cer●ò scimus, hereof we (Christians) are sure. And why? but because it is a ruled Christian case, He that heareth not the Church is an Heretic.  Heathen and Publican, Matth. 18. vers. 17. And, as S. Augustine ●ayth, Epist. 118. to dispute against the whole Church, is most insolent madness, specially when the doctrine is ancient without any known beginning, as are the supposed erroneous customs & doctrines of the Roman Church. For then the undertaking Reformer must strive against not only the whole present Church, but also the whole stream of the visible Church time out of mind since the Apostles, Et quis ad haec idoneus? who is able to begin a new course of Christianity, and to overthrew that doctrine which is universally received & cannot be proved by any Traditions of Ancestors to be otherwise planted in the world, but by the Apostles themselves, through the efficacy of innumerable miracles? Wherefore these doctrines if they be errors, are errors which by the principles of Christianity no man ought to go about to reform. And seeing it is impossible, that there should be any such errors, we must acknowledge that principle of S. Augustine as most certain. That doctrines received universally in the Church without any known beginning are truly and verily Apostolical, and of this kind are the Roman, from which Protestants are gone.   

The fifth Argument.  
THAT doctrine which Tradition hath delivered as the doctrine of all Ancestors without delivering any Orthodox opposition against it, that is, opposition made by any confessed Catholic Doctors or Fathers, is doctrine derived from the Apostles without change.  
But such is the doctrine of the Roman Church, which consent and Tradition of Ancestors doth deliver, and doth not together deliver that any confessed 
(q) The Minister pag. 141. & 144. lin. 8. saith that in the days of the Fathers the Roman doctrine was not in being, nor heard of, and that this was they cause they did not so punctually and literally oppose them. I Answer. The Minister doth but set a face on the matter. For he knows, that it is most evident & confessed by Protestant's that at the least some Fathers held our Religion expressly in diverse particulars. For example, doth not Origen teach and practise Invocation of Saints lib. 2. in job. & in joshua. c. 13. as a doctrine undoubtedly pious, saying thereof: Quis dubitat? in Num. c. 31. Did not diverse Fathers make it their special study to discover Origens' errors, as S. Hierome, Epiphanius, Theophilus? And yet these Fathers having noted so many errors in Origen, never censured him in respect of this. Which is a manifest sign they held with Origen in this po●nt, that Invocation of deceased Saints is an undoubted Christian duty▪ even as much as the praying unto living Saints.  orthodox Father opposed against it. We know indeed by Tradition, that some in former times stood against many points of the Roman doctrine, as Arrius, Pelagius, Waldo, the Albigenses, Wickliff, Husse, and some others, but they are not confessed orthodox Fathers, but were noted for novelty and singularity, and for such by Tradition described unto us: which kind of opposition doth not discredit the doctrine of the Church, but rather makes the same to appear more clearly and famously Apostolical; seeing as even D. Field, Of the Church lib. 4. cap. 14. doth confess) When a doctrine 
(r) It is true as the Minister saith pag. 140. That this Doctor doth not make the judgement of the present Bishops of one age by itself solely infallible, but only the judgement of perpetual succession from the Apostles: yet it is true also that he makes the consent of one age so great, as is here expressed, an evident sign of the judgement of perpetual succession. Read the place.  is in any age constantly delivered as a matter of Faith, and as received from Ancestors in such sort as the contradictours thereof were in the beginning noted for novelty, and if they persisted in contradiction, in the end charged with heresy, it is not possible but such a doctrine should come by succession from the Apostles. What more evident sign of a perpetual Apostolical Tradition, than this?  
Protestants answer that it is sufficient that the Roman doctrine was contradicted by Orthodox Fathers, and that this may be proved by their writings which they have left unto posterity, though their opposition was not noted by antiquity, nor by the fame of Tradition delivered unto posterity. But this answer leaves no means whereby common people may know certainly the perpetual Tradition of God's Church, without exact examining and looking into the works of the Fathers; which common people cannot do, I prove it.  
If against every Tradition of the Church difficil & obscure passages may be brought out of Fathers, & this doth suffice to make the same questionable, than no Tradition can be certainly known without exact reading, and examining of the Fathers. But no Tradition, or Doctrine is so constantly & clearly delivered by the Fathers but diverse obscure and difficile places out of their works may be brought against them, with such a show, that 
(s) The Minister doth p. 141. & 144. aver, that silly Ignorant men are to examine controversies by Scripture; and, that by it they may know the right doctrine in all necessary matters assuredly, without resting upon the authority of the Church's Tradition. This hath been formerly confuted, and it is to men of judgement, ridiculous. Yea the Minister himself elsewhere Orthodox 392. derides it saying: A blind man cannot judge of colours, & a rude and ignorant person is less able to EXAMINE Controversyes, and deep points of Religion. And again ibid. pag. 393. We do not set a blind horse before others, nor suffer any vulgar person to be his own carver in receiving and refusing public doctrine: and the same doth he teach in this Reply pag. 301. yea Luther Tom. 1. Germ. Wi●temb. come in Gal. fol. 29. §. 3 saith: Non quivis habet intellectum & sensum ut de controversijs Fidel inter nos & Papistas tutò & Christianè iudicare possit. How then shall these be saved, but by simply believing the Tradition of Ancestors, hand from hand delivered unto them?  common people shall not know what to say. For what Tradition more constantly delivered by the Christian doctors than our Saviour's consubstantiality with his Father according to his divine nature? and yet the New reformed Arrians, as you may see in Bellarmin. l. 2. de Christo cap. 10. bring very many testimonies of ancient Fathers to prove that in this point they did contradict themselves, and were contrary one to another; which places whosoever shall read, will clearly see, that to common people they are unanswerable; yea that common people are not capable of the answers that learned men yield unto such obscure passages; what then shall they do? They must answer, that antiquity did never acknowledge such dissension amongst the Fathers in the point of our Saviour's Consubstantiality, which they would not have omitted to do had there been any such real dissension, seeing they noted the Father's opposition in lesser matters. In the same manner Catholics do sufficiently answer Protestants that bring places of Fathers against the received Traditions of the Church, as the Real Presence, Invocation of Saints, and other the like, to wit, that Traditions delivered these doctrines, as the uniform consent of the Fathers, and never noted such oppositions, as Protestants frame out of their writings; which is a clear sign that Protestants either misalleadge their words, or mistake their meaning. For were that contradiction real, why did not Antiquity famously note it, as it noted & conveyed by fame to posterity their differences about disputable matters? 
(t) The Minister here will retort this argument pag. 144. lin. 34. If every doctrine (saith he) is Apostolical against which the ancient Fathers made no express opposition, than these Protestant articles are Apostolical; that the Roman Bishop and Council may err; that the substance of bread & wine remain after consecration; that common prayer ought to be uttered in a known language. I answer, Not every doctrine against which the Fathers do not expressly oppose, is Apostolical, for some heresies were not thought of in that time, as this Protestant persuasion, That Common prayer must be said by the public Minister in a language vulgarly understood of every woman, and that it doth not suffice that the more principal persons of the Church understand it, word by word, and the rest being instructed, do for matter and substance, though not word by word: So not every doctrine not opposed, but every doctrine that is taught confessedly, as Christian doctrine, by some ancient Fathers, & was never expressly & by name opposed by any of the Fathers; Doctrine I say, thus taught & never opposed, & as such delivered by full Tradition, is infallibly Apostolical. Such are our doctrines, as may be proved even in the particular examples brought by the Minister as for the contrary, particularly in this first instance of their doctrine, That the Roman Bishop & Counsels may err. For was this Protestant doctrine never opposed by any Father? do not the Magdeburgians Centur. 4. col. 550. acknowledge the ancient Ecclesiastical Canon, that the Counsels are not to be celebrated without the sentence of the Roman Bishop? And the Fathers held such Conncells had the holy Ghost, so as they could not err; so clearly, as Luther complains, Postill. Wittemb. Dom. 8. post. Trinitatem. fol. 114.6. § 3 Gregory, Augustin, and many other holy Fathers erred in taking from us power to judge our Teachers commanding us to believe the POPE and Counsels. For this misery is very ancient in the Church. Thus he.  This answer is full, and a certain ground of persuasion, else (as I said) common people could never know the assured Tradition of their Ancestors, upon which they must (as I proved) build their Chistian belief, seeing as D. Field in the epistle Dedicatory also noteth, There be few, and very few that have leisure, or strength of judgenent to examine particular controversyes by Scripture or Fathers, but needs must rest in that doctrine which the Church delivers as a Tradition, never contradicted by any Orthodox Fathers.  
To discredit therefore a constant received Tradition, it is necessary to bring an Orthodox contradiction thereof, not newly found out by reading the Fathers, but a contradiction by the same of antiquity delivered unto posterity, which kind of contradiction they cannot find against any point of Catholic doctrine. For let them name but one Father whom Antiquity doth acknowledge as a Contradictour of Invocation of Saints, Adoration of the Sacrament, Real Presence, Prayer for the dead? they cannot certainly, though they bring diverse places to prove (a thing which Antiquity never noted or knew of before) that the Fathers be various, and wavering about these points.    

The Conclusion of this point, showing that Protestants Err fundamentally. §. 6.  
OUT of all this appears, that the Roman Church is the true Church, and consequently 
(u) The Minister cavilleth at this consequence, but it is evident, for the Church is but One, in which only salvation is had, and if the Roman be this Church, Protestants are not saved out of it.  that Protestants have 
(*) 
The Minister in making answer unto this paragraph, is from the beginning to the end not only exceeding bitter, and full of railing, but also impertinent, not understanding the state of the controversy, nor what the jesuite undertaketh to prove. The jesuites conclusion bendeth against some Protestants with whom he dealt in his Conferences, holding there is no fundamental difference betwixt the Roman Church and the Protestant, that men may be saved indifferently in the one and the other, Protestant doctrines wherein they differ from the Roman, though they should be errors not being fundamental, and damnable errors.  
The jesuits intention was against these men not to prove absolutely that Protestants err, (for then he would have proved the Nine objected articles to be errors, by such testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers as would have puzzeled the Minister) but supposing as given and not granted by his adversary's, Dato, & non concesso, that Protestants err, he undertaketh to show their errors to be main, fundamental and damnable, and that the maintainers thereof cannot be saved, and so no salvation to be had but in the one, Catholic Church. Hence it is evident, that the Ministers labour to show that the Protestant doctrines be not errors, is impertinent; for this the jesuite did not intent to prove, but supposing they are errors, to prove they are damnable and fundamental errors, against Adiaphorists, that hold there is no fundamental difference betwixt the Protestant, and Roman Church.   fundamental Errors about faith.  
Errors are 
(x) The Minister saith, that errors fundamental must be convinced to be such out of Scripture, citing to this purpose the saying of S. Augustine De doctrine. Christian. lib. 2. cap. 3. In these things that are clearly delivered in Scripture, are contained all those things which contain faith and good manners. I answer. S. Augustine saith not, that all necessary things are contained expressly in Scripture, not in particular, and distinctly, but in general, and according to the generical name of necessary virtues, as his words fully set down declare, which are these; All things that contain faith and good manners, to wit, hope and charity. No doubt but the generical duties of Faith, Hope, & Charity are expressly, & even in so many words set down in Scripture, though not all particularityes about them, seeing now all Protestants grant, that some things are contained in Scripture inuoluedly and implicitly, that is, in other terms intricately and obscurely.  fundamental, that is damnable, either in regard of the matter, because against some substantial matter of faith, the knowledge whereof is necessary for the performance of a required Christian duty; or in regard of the manner they are held, to wit, so obstinately as in defence of them one denies the Catholic Church. Errors fundamental of the first kind Protestants have diverse, particularly these Nine.  
First, their doctrine against Tradition unwritten, whereby the 
(y) By Tradition, is understood, Doctrine known precedently & independently of Scripture, though perchance the same be written. This doctrine precedently known unto Scripture the Minister professeth that Protestants deny pag. 105. lin. 24. & consequently they err fundamentally. For here by they be forced to make the resolution of their faith by the evidence of the thing and light of the matter, against the first ground of Christian Religion that in this life we walk by faith, & not by evidence as hath been showed.  Foundation is overthrown, on which we believe all other substantial and fundamental points, as hath been showed.  
Secondly, their denying the 
(z) The Minister though he deny the Primacy of S. Peter, yet is forced by the evidence of the sacred Text to grant that whence this primacy is proved. First, p. 157. that S. Peter had the Primacy of spiritual authority & universal jurisdiction over the whole Church with the rest of the Apostles. Secondly, that this was given him singularly, to wit, as appears by the Gospel Matth. 16.10. joan. 20.21. by the singular order & institution Christ applied to him. Now this doth enforce Monarchical primacy. For the three different forms of government, Democracy, Aristocracy, Monarchy, are nothing else but three different applications of the primacy of jurisdiction universal, to different persons. Primacy of universal juridiction applied generally to the whole Commons, is Democracy, applied principally to some few chief persons of the State, Aristocracy, applied singularly to one individual person, Monarchy. And what is understood by Monarchy, but primacy of power and universal jurisdiction applied singularly to one individual person over all the affairs of a whole and entiere state? Hence the Apostles were, as the Fathers say, both equal and inferior unto Peter. Equal, in that they had the same kind of power that Peter had, to wit the authority of the Key-bearers, of the Rocks, of the Pastors of the universal Church, nor do we read in the Gospel any kind of power given to Peter which was not also given for kind to the rest: on the other side, the other Apostles were inferior unto Peter, as the same Fathers affirm, in that they had the same kind of power in a lower degree with subordination unto Peter as the chief, no kind of power being given to the rest of the Apostles, which we do not expressly read in the Gospel to have been given to S. Peter by singular commission, order, and institution. Whence it is consequent that Peter was governor of the whole Church with the rest, in more eminent degree of power and jurisdiction than the rest, all men being bound to obey him more specially, more singularly, and above the rest. The eminency of the rest in the Church was universal power had by commission directed commonly to them all, whereby they all indifferently, not one more than the other, received commission of power in respect of all men of the Church distinct from themselves. The eminency of Peter in the Church was universal power given by commission directed singularly to his only person, To Peter the son of jonas, Matth. 16.18. Whereby he was endued with primacy of Ecclesiastical power in respect of all men in the Church distinct from himself, in which number all Christians absolutely are comprehended, not one excluded. And this is Monarchy. Now, if Christ did ordain and institute Monarchical Government in his Church, than the government thereof must be, and was▪ ever Monarchical, and that Peter still hath had a Monarchical successor; but if he had such a successor it is by all histories more evident than the sun, that he had no other but the Roman Bishop. What the Minister here objecteth against the Roman Bishops Primacy is trivial stuff, urged without any new difficulty, to wit, about the title of universal Bishop, the Nicene Canon, Contention of S. Cyprian with Pope Stephen, the controversy of the Africans about Appellations, the Asians resisting Pope Victor. All which Instances truly examined, prove the primacy most evidently▪ as is showed by Bellarmine l. 2▪ de Pontif. & lately by Fidelis Annosus de Monarchia Ecclesiastica. l. 2. c. 5. & 6.  Primacy of S. Peter & his successors, the foundation which Christ laid of his Church necessary for the perpetual government thereof, Matth. 16.18.  
Thirdly, their questioning the infallible Authority of lawful 
(a) The Minister here raileth against Counsels gathered by the authority of the Pope, and in most gross manner falsifieth Cusanus in eight or nine particulars, but in fine he dares not make direct answer to the question proposed, whether Protestants hold the definitions of Lawful General Counsels to be infallible or not. His answer hereunto is like the oracle of Apollo, given in general and doubtful terms, to wit, that Protestants give the same authority unto Counsels that the ancient Church did; in the margin he cities S. Augustine; that Counsels of Bishops are not to be equalled unto Scriptures, as doubtless they may not. The truth is, though he be ashamed to say it in plain terms, Protestants hold General Counsels lawfully assembled to be inferior not only unto Scripture, but also unto their exposition thereof. For they teach, that Counsels be not assisted by the holy Ghost, that it is most pernicious yea abominable to think so of them. Luther Tom. 7. Germ. Wittenberg. fol. 262. and though they proceed lawfully and be confirmed by the supreme Pastors, yet be they fallible, examinable, refusable, and subject to the Protestant skill in Scripture. In so much as the same Luther in his articles, art. 115. saith▪ When Counsels have defined, then will we be judges whether they be to be accepted, or not. And the same saith Caluin. l. 4. Instit. cap. 9 Hence appears how idle their pretence is, that forsooth they would fain have a free General Council. To what purpose? Surely they can intent nothing else but that they may bring the Council to be of their humour, or else if it be against them, to contemn it as not being in their judgement conform unto Scripture. It is reason M. White, that you first meet amongst yourselves, You I say, that pretend to be reform, and see whether you can agree, that General Counsels are infalli●●● 〈◊〉 by the spirit of Christ▪ so that no man may by his skill in Scripture, or any other pretence reject them. This done then speak of meeting with Catholics in a General Council: Otherwise Catholics by meeting with you, are sure to gain no peace and unity except they yield unto you; & beside by the very yielding to meet with you they must for ever renounce the infallibility of Counsels, such a divine stay of peace and unity in the Church. That this perpetual renuntiation unto Counsels must be made by meeting with you, is clear. For by admitting you who question the authority of Counsels, into their Counsels, they must admit that it is at least questionable, among Christians, whether such Counsels be infallibly assisted by God's holy spirit, or not, else they cannot meet with you, but must fly from you as damned heretics. If they admit the infallibility of Counsels to be questionable, they must bid this infallibility farewell for ever, it can never be established by any ensuing consent of General Counsels. For if a General Council should define that General Counsels are infallible, except we be sure aforehand that Counsels are infallible we may doubt whether that Council doth not err in defining that Counsels are infallible. Wherefore this doctrine of the infallibility of lawful General Counsels is either to be abandoned for ever, together with the unity of the Church that so much depends thereon, or else it is to be held as a known perpetual Christian Tradition, delivered by full practice independently of the definition of any Council, never permitting the same to examination; as one of those articles whereof Luther saith comment. in Psalm. 82. fol. 546. Generales articuli recepti in tota Ecclesia satis auditi, excussi, approbati sunt etc. ferendus non est qui v●lit eos in dubium revocare, sed velut blasphemus indicta causa & inaudita damnandus.  General Counsels, thereby casting down the foundation of unity in the Church.  
Fourthly, their denying the foundation of true 
(b) This is the most essential point of Protestancy which they term the foundation of foundations & the pith & marrow of the Gospel. See the book de Essentia Protestantism. lib. 1. c. 6 This their doctrine consists in four points. First that every man is justified by the justice of Christ, by being as it were vested therewith. Secondly, this justice of Christ is formally imputed unto every man, not through repentance and mortification, but through Faith only. Thirdly, that this faith is not the dogmatic or historical faith, whereby we believe in general the words of Christ and revealed misteryes of the Scripture, but a special faith whereby a man doth firmly and infallibly persuade himself, that to him in particular the justice of Christ is imputed for the full remission of his sins. Fourthly, that he that hath not firm faith that his sins are remitted unto him by the imputation of Christ's merits, hath not justifying faith, nor is just in the sight of God, but as good as an Infidel, though he have historical faith that all the doctrines of Christian Religion are true. Hence you may perceive, that our Minister is a man of no faith, who not only denies this article of Protestancy, not only says that they neither now hold or ever held it, but also revileth the jesuite, charging him with Lying, with Calumniation, with Depraving and falsifying their Protestant doctrine, and that he wanted matter to fraught his papers when he charged their Church with teaching justification by this special Faith. pag. 163. yea on the contrary side he saith, that Protestants hold these four points. First, that a Christian of a contrite spirit believing that his sins are remissible, receiveth forgiveness though he want faith, and persuasion in himself that his sins are remitted to him in particular by the imputation of Christ's merit. pag. 166. lin. 6. & seq. Secondly, that Protestants hold no man is justified by only faith, or by only believing himself to be just, and his sins forgiven by the imputation of the justice of Christ, but he must be just before he can, or aught to believe himself to be so. pag. 62. lin. 8. Thirdly, that the promise of remission of sins is conditional, requiring of sinners not faith only, but also the forsaking of sin and doing good works. Esa. 1.16.17.18. and that this promise becomes not absolute, till the conditions be fulfilled. pag. 166. lin. 12. Fourthly, that justifying faith is the Christian Catholic Dogmatic faith, whereby we believe the histories of Scripture and mysteries of our Religion. ibid. pag. 161. lin. 5. Wherefore he saith that the difference betwixt Protestants and us Catholics, is only in two points. First, that they require not only dogmatic faith, but also that this be a Fiducial assent, that is, joined with Hope pag. 163. lin. 1. But we forsooth hold justification by dogmatic faith only, and by such faith as is in Devils, and do not require that the dogmatical or intellectual assent be also fiducial, that is, joined with Hope. pag. 168. lin. 2. Secondly, that we hold that a man cannot be certain by faith that he is just: but Protestants hold the contrary; yet he saith pag. 167. lin. 20. that there is very small difference, if any at all, betwixt them & us herein, because they do not hold this their assurance that they are just, to be equal in the firmity of assent, to the assurance of Dogmatic faith which they have about the common object of faith. Thus the Minister: whom I leave to the censure of Protestants, with no little wonder they can endure him to write in this sort, and thus openly to disclaim & show himself ashamed of the very Essence of their Religion. What is certain amongst Protestants, if this may be denied? Howsoever I conclude this point with this syllogism against them. Protestants, even by the tacit concession of this their Advocate hold fundamental and damnable heresy, as certainly as it is certain that they hold justification, not by common Dogmatic faith, but by special faith only, whereby one apprehends the justice of Christ and vesteth himself therewith, believing in particular his sins to be forgiven, and himself to be just in God's sight by the imputation thereof unto him through this his faith. But that Protestants hold this as a most fundamental article of their Religion, is as certain as it is certain that there is, or ever was Protestant in the world; Wherein I appeal to the judgement of all learned Protestants, and to these their books, Luther Epist. ad Galat. Caluin. lib. 3. Institut. lib. 11. Melancthon in coll. comm. Kemnit. Exam. Trid. 1. p. john White (our Ministers Brother) defence. pa. 188.189. & seq. and to the conscience of every Protestant; yea this is the eleventh article of the English Church, That a man is accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of Christ jesus by faith. And it is wholesome doctrine (say they) that we are justified by this faith.  justification, which is the one, Catholic, Christian faith, about revealed misteryes, bringing in a fantastical faith, pretending that every man is justified by believing himself in particular to be just, or one of Gods elect.  
Fiftly, their extenuating the value of the price of our Redemption, not making it sufficient to give 
(c) The Minister being ashamed of his Religion, doth here also contest that Protestant's teach the merit of works: He saith indeed in words they teach only the merit of Congruity, but in sense he makes them to teach merit of condignity, as much as any Catholic doth, as is after proved in the 8. point.  inward sanctity & purity to men's souls, nor to raise the works of God's children to a due perfection with their reward.  
Sixtly, their Errors against Baptism, the gate and entrance into Christian life, whereof they deny the virtue to sanctify men, & the 
(d) To discover the vanity of the Minister, who saith that the Protestant doctrine about Baptism is held by our Schoolmen. Note, that concerning the necessity of Baptism there be three errors, the one greater than the other. The first, that though Baptism be the only ordinary means of salvation, yet some children dying without Baptism are saved by extraordinary favour, as S. john was sanctified in the womb. Luc. 1.2.53. This is held by some Catholics, but no fundamental error, because it affirms not any extraordinary favour but such as by the word of God we know may be granted, only it doth rashly apply Gods extraordinary favours to persons without sufficient warrant. The second error is, that though Baptism be the ordinary means of salvation for Infants, yet in defect thereof there is also another ordinary means for their salvation, to wit the faith of their Parents. This error is gross, because it presumes without the word of God written or unwritten, to appoint an ordinary means of salvation for Infants. This doctrine is taught by Protestants, but no Catholic holds it: Caietan once held it with submission unto the Church, which hath razed it out of his books. The third error is, that the children of faithful Parents are justified by the promise made to their seed, and are Gods adopted children before they be borne, so that Baptism doth not truly regenerate them, & make them Gods children, but is said to regenerate and adopt, because it is a seal and sign of this grace of adoption, which children had before Baptism, yea brought with them into the world. This error is fundamental and damnable, which Protestants hold, and will hold in despite of their Church, and yet dares she not say they are not her children. Caluin de vera Eccles. reform. inter eius opuscula fol. 759. writeth: The Issue of the faithful is borne into the world holy and sanctified, because their children being yet in the womb before they draw breath, be adopted into the covenant of eternal life. For it is necessary that the grace of adoption go before baptism, which grace is not the cause of halfe-saluation, but bringeth perfect and full salvation, which is afterward signed by Baptism. Thus Caluin. What the Minister brings out of the said Caluin to prove he held that Baptism doth truly sanctify, to wit, that children are regenerated by Baptism, is idle. For unto it Caluin himself hath made answer, l. 4. Institut. c. 15. §. 2. When (saith he) Baptism is said to regenerate, to renew, to sanctify, to save men, the meaning is not, that our purgation & salvation is made by water, or that water hath virtue to purify, to regenerate, to renew, but only because by that sign we conceive knowledge and certitude of such gifts; for what is given by the message of the Gospel, is signed and sealed by Baptism. Hear also I conclude, that either the Minister and his Church errs fundamentally, or at least they must grant four things. First, that Caluin and his part err fundamentally. Secondly; that Culuinists cannot be saved except they repent themselves of their Religion. Thirdly, that amongst Protestants there is dissension about fundamental matters. Fourthly, that the Protestants do not exclude from their communion such as hold substantial Heresy.  necessity thereof for Infants, to whom they grant salvation without Baptism.  
Seaventhly, their Error against the 
(*) The Minister saith that Protestants only deny the manner of the Real Presence, to wit Transubstantiation, not the substance thereof, because they hold that the body of Christ is truly, really, and effectually present to the worthy Receiver, but present by the apprehension of the soul, and by operative faith, pag. 178.179. & seq. & pag. 390. & 395. I answer, that as the Answerer said, this Presence by faith is not Real, nor true but only pious Imagination at the most, as is proved in the sixth Point.  Real presence which they deny, or else the main article of the Creed, that Christ is still in heaven at the right hand of his Father. For they will not allow a body in two places at once.  
Eightly, their denying the Sacrament of 
(e) The Minister pag. 189. saith, that Protestants allow auricular Confession and Priestly Absolution, but deny it to be a Sacrament, or of necessity, in proof whereof he citeth the Augustane Confession. Answer. If the Minister approve the Augustan confession, he must approve priestly absolution to be truly a Sacrament, and of necessity being commanded of God, even as Baptism is. For thus they writ, Cap. de numero & usu Sacramentorum: The true Sacraments are Baptism, the supper of the Lord, Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Penance. For these rites have the same commandment of God, and promise of grace proper to the new Testament. Thus they: so even by the judgement of this Confession, which they esteem as containing the fundamental doctrine of their Religion, our Minister and his Church err fundamentally.  Penance, and Priestly Absolution, the necessary means for remission of sin, committed after 
(f) Against this Sacrament the Minister disputeth largely, but his arguments are trivial, which he takes out of Bellarmine concealing the Solutions, which who will may there read in his first book of the Sacrament of Penance. What he brings out of some Catholic Authors, affirming that it is hard to prove clearly this Sacrament: the Answer is, That to prove the Sacrament of Penance and the necessity thereof for sins after Baptism by the perpetual Tradition, and practise of the Church, is not hard, but easy, which you may see fully performed by Bellarmine; but to prove the same by some text of Scripture so clearly as some cavil may not be taken at the argument, this is difficile. And no wonder, seeing our Minister pag. 541. lin. 9 doth grant, that even the Principal articles of Religion cannot be so proved by Scripture, but seeming Solutions may be given.  Baptism.  
Ninthly, their denying the Catholic Church expressly set down in the Creed, which of all other Articles is with 
(g) Other articles are more necessary than this, as sole objects of necessary divine affection, & in this respect are more dangerously denied: But as the means of knowing necessary objects nothing more necessary than this true Church, nor any thing more evident, & therefore the denial thereof is most dangerous in respect of heresy; yea the Article, without resistance whereof no man can be Heretic.  greatest danger denied. For the standing out against this, makes men heretics, & without erring against this no man is guilty of heresy: whatsoever Doctor Field to the contrary saith, that an Errand against a fundamental point is an Heretic though he err without 
(h) What the Minister saith, that a man may be pertinacious & obstinate against Scripture & not against the Church is impossible. For either he seethe his doctrine to be against Scripture or not, if he see his doctrine to be contrary to the Scripture & yet holds it, he doth judge the Scripture not to be Christ's nor of God, & consequently he is pertinacious against the Church's Tradition, which as hath been said, is the stay of our Faith in this point. If he see not his exposition to be against Scripture, but is deceyued by conference of places, he is not Heretic until knowing his exposition to be condemned by the Church he persist therein. For what is pertinacious wilfulness, but to resist lawful authority which we know to be against us?  pertinacity, whereof he brings not any syllable of proof; & yet his doctrine is against the whole Consent of Divines, & expressly against S. Augustine who saith, that a man holding with Photinus (whose Errors were fundamental against the Trinity & God head of Christ) thinking he holds Catholic doctrine, is not yet an 
(*) The Minister saith pa. 196. that the JESVITE cities not Augustine truly, for he only saith, I would not affirm of such a person, that he is an Heretic. Answer. This is untruth. S. Austin saith, Istum nondum haereticum dico, I do affirm this man not to be yet an Heretic, though he hold fundamental error, till he know he doth it against the Catholic CHURCH. What he addeth that S. Austin means, that ignorance is not heresy in foro Ecclesiae, but is heresy in foro caeli, is ridiculous; for the contrary is true, because whosoever denies though ignorantly the known articles of the Creed, is an heretic in foro Ecclesiae, because he is presumed to err out of contempt, not out of ignorance. But if he be truly ignorant he is no heretic in foro caeli, because verily he is not wilful.  Heretic, till warned that he holds against the Catholic Church, he chooseth to persever in his error.  
Hence I infer, that Protestants err fundamentally (according to the second kind of erring, to wit in the manner) in all points they hold against the Roman Church, which I haved proved to be the true Catholic Church. For he that holds any private opinions so stiffly, as rather than forsake it he denies & abandons the Catholic Church, a main article of his Creed, erreth fundamentally, as is clear. But Protestants hold their private opinions so stiffly as thereupon they have denied and abandoned the Catholic Church, to wit, the Roman. Neither doth it import that they retain the word, having rejected the sense, seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter believed makes men Christians. Neither is it enough to say, that they believe the Church of the Elect, seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the only Elect (a mere Fancy), but the visible and conspicuous Church, continuing from the Apostles, by succession of Bishops, which thus I prove.  
The Church whereof Christ said, I am always with you to the consummation of the world, is the Church of the Creed, or the Church which to forsake is damnable. For the Church wherewith Christ still abideth, not according to corporal & visible presence, but by his spirit, is the body of Christ whereof he is head, into which he infuseth the life of grace, & consequently he that forsaketh this Church, forsaketh the body of Christ, and the head thereof, and cannot live by his spirit, but is in a dead and damnable state, as a member cut off and separated from a living body, as S. Augustine epist. 50. & de unit. Eccles. c. 16. long ago noted; The Catholic Church is the body of Christ, whereof he is head; out of this body the Holy Ghost quickeneth no man. Now the Church whereof Christ said, I am always with you to the consummation of the world, is not the Church invisible of only the Elect, but a visible Church derived by succession from the Apostles. Therefore he that forsakes the Church derived by succession from the Apostles, forsakes the Church of the Creed, the Catholic Church, the body of Christ, & puts himself into a dead & damnable state, & may have all things besides salvation and eternal life, as Fathers affirm, whose testimonies in this behalf are notable and famously known; whereunto D. Field yieldeth, acknowleging one, holy, Catholic Church in which only the light of heavenly Truth is to be sought, where only grace, mercy, remission of sins, and hope of eternal happiness are found.    

AN ANSWER TO THE Nine Points, proposed by your most Excellent Majesty.  
I Have been large in my former proofs, that the Roman is the, one, holy true, catholic church, whose Traditions coming down by perpetual succession from Christ and his holy Apostles, are so constantly and strongly to be believed, that no proofs out of Scripture (by private interpretation understood) though seeming most evident, may stand to contest 
(a) The Minister here spends a whole leaf of Paper in bitterness & gall against us, as if we did profess to prefer Old Custom, before known Verity. It is not so, but thus the case standeth between Protestants and us. First as for Verity neither they nor we know our Religion to be verity by manifest sight, nor by the light, lustre, & evidence of the thing or doctrine, as both of us must acknowledge if we be sober. Secondly there be records which by Tradition we know to have been given by the Apostles, which upon good warrant are believed to deliver nothing but Gods holy word. Thirdly, when Controversies arise about this word of the Apostles, and there be different opinions about the sense thereof, & seeming arguments be brought on both sides, we think that side ought to prevail as the truly Christian, for which perpetual Christian Tradition & Custom stand. Fourtly, we judge that that side ought to be rejected as not truly Christian, where Christian Tradition is so notoriosly defective as they cannot ascend from this age upward towards Christ by naming professors of their Religion, higher than one hundred years; or if they presume to pass further, they are presently convinced to feign, as it happeneth unto Protestants. This is the sum of all that hath been hitherto said, and the form of the Catholic proceeding about their resolution of faith.  against them. And this I have not done without purpose, assuring myself, that if your Majesty were throughly persuaded in this point, you would without any man's help, most easily and fully satisfy yourself in particular controversyes, out of your own wisdom and learning. For as some that have been present at your Majesty's discourses casually incident about Religion, report; few of our Divines (though trained up continually in Academies, and Exercises of Theology) are able to say more than your Majesty in defence of the catholic cause for particular controversyes, when you please to undertake the patronage thereof: which I can easily believe out of my own Experience, who could not but admire, seeing your Majesty so well acquainted with our doctrines, and so ready and prompt in Scholastical subtleties.  
Wherefore most humbly I beseech your most Excellent Majesty to honour these my poor labours with a gracious perusal of them, accepting of mine Answers when they may seem reasonable, being in defence of doctrines received from Ancestors, which deserve approbation when there is no evidency against them; and of your abundant clemency pardon my prolixity, seeing the questions by your Majesty proposed, were so difficile and obscure, as I could hardly have made any shorter full explication of them.  

THE FIRST POINT. The 
(b) 
The Minister in this question knows not well what to stand unto. He grants the question, and then he denies it again contradicting himself, yea censuring his own whole discourse as impertinent. This I demonstrate out of his own words. First pa. 242. he saith, that the question is not about Divine and Religious worship of Images, but about any kind of real worship. These be his very words. The question whether Images be to be adored with divine worship, or not, is Heterogeneous, that is, impertinent to this disputation. It is sufficient that Papists adore and worship Images with some kind of Real worship, such as the Trident Council expressly defineth. Thus he there, professing that to impugn Iconolatry, or divine worship of images, is impertinent. And yet in the beginning of this disputation he professeth contrariwise to impugn this only Adoration, & not every kind of worship of Images. Thus he writes pag. 212. The Advocate of Images should first of all have declared what he understandeth by worship of Images, whether Veneration only, or Adoration properly so called. Veneration signifies external reverence & regard of pictures, such as is given to Church's Communion-Tables and sacred vessels; And according to this notion many have approved worspippe of Images that deny adoration. Adoration properly so taken, is yielding of honour by Religious submission of soul & body etc. the worshipping of Images in this manner is superstition. Thus the Minister. Who to prove that Protestants allow veneration or external worship of Images, in his margin citeth junius against Bellarmine, professing in the name of all Protestants; None of us say, Images are not to be worshipped, much less do we say, that they are no ways to be worshipped. WE ALLOW, that they be worshipped in their kind as Images, but not with Religious worship. Behold how clearly he grants the question in hand, even as much as the answerer intended to prove. For what the Minister saith, that the Answerer doth not declare what he understandeth by worship, whether external Veneration or internal Adoration, is false. For he often and clearly affirmeth, that the worship he means to prove to be due unto the Image of our Saviour, is the external regard & the reverence of bowing, such as is used towards Altars and Communion tables out of inward religions reverence and devotion unto Christ. This the Answerer did set down presently in the beginning of his discourse about images, and repeats the same almost in every paragraph. See his text in the Minister's book pag. 214. Outwardly to the Image, inwardly to Christ. pag. 206. Externally to the Image, by mental affection unto the person. pa. 827. Outwardly to the Image, by devout and pious Imagination to the person, and the like very often.  
Nor is the Ministers insinuation true, that the Council of Trent doth define the worship of Images under the terms of Religious Adoration. First, the Council neither useth the term Religious, nor Adoration; but Veneration, the term, the very word allowed by the Minister. Secondly, the Council declares, that this Veneration is outward regard, as kneeling, bowing the body, uncovering the head, done before the Images of our Saviour, to the end we may adore him, that is, testify our inward supreme devotion towards him. Finally, it is false that Adoration doth properly signify Divine & Religious worship, seeing properly according to the common acception of the word in Scripture, it signify any bowing of the body in sign of reverence; as might be proved by more than an hundred examples of Scripture where creatures are said to be adored. The Fathers sometimes take the word Adore in the more principal sense, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only for divine worship. In which sense they say only God is adored. Epiphan. haeres. 79. Sat in honore Maria, Deus adoretur. Hieronymus Ep. 53. Non Angelos vel aliquam creaturam adoramus. Yet also the same Fathers take the word in the proper sense, & say, that other things besides God are adored as Men. Augustine de civet l. 10. c. 4. Homines si mullum illis addatur etiam adorandi. Men are to be honoured, & when much adored. S. Hierome Epist. 17. Baptistae cineres adorare, to ADORE the Ashes of S. john. The holy Crosse. Cyrill. Alexandrin. homil. de Deipara in Concil. Ephesin. Crux adoratur toto orbe terrarum. Holy Images·s Damascen. lib. 4. Orthod. fidei c. 7. Saluatoris etc. Imagines adoramus. we adore the images of our Lord. Hence it is evident, that our Minister on the one side witnessing out of junius, that all Protestants allow some kind of worship unto Images, to wit, veneration & external worship; and on the other professing to impugn the Religious adoration of images only, hath yielded the question in controversy, & his disputation against Iconolatry is, according to his own doom and word, Heretogeneous, that is, impertinent, and in the air.   Worship of Images.  
I Have more hope to give your Majesty satisfaction in this article because all kind of Theological proofs stand for the same, and nothing against it as I am persuaded, which I declare by this discourse.  
If the custom of worshipping Images be grounded on the prime principles of nature & christianity; If the same hath been received in the church Vniversally, without any known time of beginning; If places of Scripture that Protestants urge against us, make as much against their custom of making Images, so that with no probability, or ingenuity they thereupon mislike us; If by the use of Images there be no danger or hurt to ignorant people, which may not with very ordinary diligence of pastors & teachers be prevented, & otherwise the utilityes very great; Then there is no reason of just mislike of this custom. But this supposition is true, & in the same order I will endeavour to show in the four Particulars.  

Worship of Images consequent out of the principles of Nature and Christianity. §. 1.  
AN Image 
(c) 
This description of an Image showeth the difference of proper Images of our Saviour from types and figures. By declaration whereof the chief part of the Ministers disputation will be answered, which is grounded upon confusion of these two different things. The proper Image represents the person of our Saviour, according to the true and proper shape of his kind, and some individual properties that agree to him only. Such is the Image of a man crucified, pourtrayted according to special circumstances recorded in the gospel. A figure represents his person in the shape of some creature dissonant from his form & kind whose corporal proprieties have resemblance with our Saviour's moral and spiritual perfections. Thus the Lion and Lamb be types or metaphorical Images of our Saviour, which resemble him not in corporal shape, but in his heavenly perfections, his mildness being figured by the Lamb, his fortitude by the Lyon.  
From this fundamental difference other three flow. First, the proper Image represents to man's Imagination, making him to apprehend by Imagination the person, or the sampler, as really present before his eyes. The figure represents to man's understanding, which apprehends by reason the analogy or proportion which the corporal qualities of the figure have with the moral properties, and perfections of the thing figured. Secondly, upon sight of the proper Image, strait a mental imagination of the person resultes in one that knoweth him, especially when the knowledge is joined with affection; and this is done so presently, that ocular aspect of the Image, and mental Imagination of the person seem to be one and the same act; But upon sight of the figure, the apprehension of the thing figured, doth not instantly follow, but is leisurely caused by discourse, comparing the one with the other.  
Thirdly, hence the proper Image is taken for the prototype, that what is done to the Image by way of outward honour or dishonour, the same is, & aught to be taken as done to the person, and this by the natural force of Imagination, and by nature's institution in this matter, without any positive ordinance. The figure is not so taken without some positive ordinance or custom. For example: If a jew tear in pieces the Image of our Saviour by way of despite, that is done, and to be taken as done mentally, and by affection to our Saviour; but if he tread under foot bread and wine, that is not to be taken as done in disgrace of our Saviour's body and blood, whereof bread and wine be types and figures, except that bread and wine be sanctified to represent his body & blood.   is a distinct and lively portraiture of some visible and corporal thing, parts of the Image corresponding to the parts of the thing represented, more or less particularly, according as the Image is more or less distinct and lively.  
The office of an Image is to carry the Imagination of the beholders thereof directly, and immediately to the person Imagined therein, imagination of parts in the person represented, answering to the parts seen in the Image; which kind and use of Images Nature allows unto men, to the end they may remember, and more lively imagine persons absent & removed from their corporal sight, upon whom they ought, and have great desire lively and stayedly to fix their Imaginations, and Thoughts.  

The first Argument.  
Hence ariseth the allowed Principle of Nature, received by all Nations, Civil and Barbarous, Ita ut in eo, to speak with S. Augustine, nulla doctorum paucitas, nulla indoctorum turba dissentiat: That the Image may and aught to stand for the prototype, and is by Imagination to be taken as it were the very person. And 
(d) The Minister pag. 214. saith; This axione is not true of all Images, but only of such Images as are by civil or divine ordinance appointed to stand for the Prototype. This he proves by the examples of the brazen Serpent, Paschall Lamb, Golden CHERUBIMS, which might not be adored, though Images of Christ; yea Ezechias defaced the Image, that is, the brazen serpent, yet adored the Prototype Christ. Answer. These examples are impertinent. The brazen Serpent, and the Paschall Lamb were types and figures of our Lord; which we grant by the mere native force of Imagination, without positive ordinance, do not necessarily stand for the thing figured; yea the jews, at the least the vulgar, did not understand that the brazen serpent was a type of the Messiah, nor can it be proved that Ezechias himself so understood it. The question is of proper Images of our Saviour: These we say stand for the prototype inviolably by the law of nature, that honour done, or denied outwardly to the Image, is done or denied mentally to the person, and aught so to be taken. The Minister if he will speak to the purpose, must bring some examples where the proper Image may be disgraced, without dishonour done to the Prototype; which he will never find. For even Ezechias when he broke in pieces the brazen serpent, did therein dishonour the proper prototype thereof, to wit, the true serpent, of which the brazen was the direct & proper Image, and of which he shown contempt, in respect of being adored of men, by tearing in pieces the Image, because it was adored with reference unto it, as Heathens worshipped the Images of Serpents and Calves. The truth of this difference between an image & figure, may be made evident unto the Minister by this familiar example. If his wife be found beholding and kissing his Image, that is set in the frontispiece of his Reply, with verses in praise of his sweet & gracious face; ought not this to be taken as done mentally to his person? And were not the contrary to wrong her? yet there is no civil Ordinance, nor Parliament law that this his Image stand for him. On the other side, if she be found kissing & making much of her little dog, though that be the type of a preaching Minister; must that be taken as done unto him? No verily. It is then clear, that there is difference betwixt figures and proper Images, in respect of standing for the prototype. Hence this principle, Honour & Dishonour done, or denied outwardly to the proper Image, is done, or denied mentally to the person, cannot be proved ever to fail: nor can our Minister show by the word of God, that any proper Image of an adored person, was ever lawfully made, and not lawfully adored.  what we outwardly do to the Image, is done by Imagination to the person. And when we kiss the hands and feet of the Image, in our Imagination we kiss the hands and feet of the person inwardly Imagined by his Image. This is the Axiom of Philosophy gathered out of Aristotle: Idem est motus in Imaginem & Exemplar. For motion proceeding from the body & mind, what the body doth really and externally to the Image, the mind doth Imaginarily, that is, by conceit & affection, to the 
(e) This is then the first argument for the worship of our Saviour's Image which may be thus summed. The proper Image, so stands for the Prototype, that what is done by way of outward honour to the Image, is done by affection to the person; & whosoever denies outwardly Reverence to the Image, is to be taken as denying mentally Reverence to the person. But our Saviour is worthy of all worship, so that it is impious to deny any worship unto him. Therefore (supposing what Protestants grant, that the Image of our Saviour is lawfully made) it is impious to deny outward Reverence unto it.  person.   

The second Argument.  
This Axione of Philosophy, that no man think it disavowed in Theology, the ancient Fathers uniformly teach as a prime truth evident in reason. S. Damascene l. 4. c. 12. S. Augustine de doct. Christ. c. 9 S. Ambrose de Dom. Incarn. Sacrament. c. 7. S. Basill de Spiritu sancto. c. 18. S. Athanasius Serm. contra Arianos, 
(f) The Minister pag. 229. lin. 24. answereth to these testimonies of the Fathers in this sort: Damascene is not Ancient, nor Orthodoxal in all points: for as Cardinal Bellarmine saith de Scriptor. Eccles. pag. 269. he denied the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son. S. Augustine speaketh of signs that have divine Institution. S. Ambrose of Christ's Passion, and not of pictures. S. Basill and Athanasius speak by way of similitude only of the Image of kings. Where is now the uniform consent of Fathers? Answer. First, S. Athanasius, though he speak particularly of the king's Image, yet his reason is the same in all the proper Images of any adored person. For his reason why the king's Image must be adored, is because the Image of the king may (not by corporal speech but by the evidence of the thing) truly say, I and the king who is adored, be one; but this the proper Image of any adored person may truly say aswell as the kings. For example, suppose that were true which our Minister saith. pag. 224. lin. 21. that Ministers have such union with God, as they are to be adored with Religious adoration, why may not the Image of our Adored Minister which is set in the front of this Reply say, I & the Minister are one, he is in me, & I in him, he that adoreth me, adoreth him, and who disgraceth me, disgraceth him aswell as the kings? And if the Minister's Image may truly affirm, I & an adored person are one, why may not also the Image of our Saviour, (who is a person more to be adored than any Minister) say the same? S. Basill speaks not particularly of the king's Image, but saith universally, that honour done to the Image, is done and referred to the person, and thence concludes in particular, that it is so in the adoration of the king & his Image, so that there are not two adorations, but one, which being done outwardly to the Image, is referred and taken, as referred mentally to the king. It is true, S. Ambrose speaks of the Image and Cross of Christ. That he meaneth not the material Cross but the Passion, the Minister doth say, but he cannot prove it, seeing S. Ambros. orat. in Theodos. saith expressly, that the Cross is adored, and in his days the holy wood of the Cross was publicly proposed to be adored, as saith S. Paulinus Epist. 11. ad Severum. S. Augustine saith l. 1. de doctrine. Christian. c. 25. that such Images are not idle inventions of men which are proposed by lawful authority; but such be the Images of Christ and his Saints ever used by the Christian Church. Wherefore those Images have divine Institution, mediate at least, and so by S. Augustine's rule, the worship of them is pious, as being not so much worship of them, as the worship of Christ & his saints▪ S. Damascen lived nine ages ago, & so was by an hundred years nearer unto Christ then unto us, how then is he not ancient? What you say, that according to Bellarmine he was not Orthodox, but denied the procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Son, you wrong both Bellarmine and him. For Bellarmine l. 1. de Christo c. 27. not only affirms, but proves that S. Damascene held the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son, quoad rem, as for the matter, though he allowed not the form of speech, procedit ex filio, because it was used by Heretics in a false sense, as though the son only had been the immediate origen of the holy Ghost, and not also the Father. And this is all Bellarmine saith in libro de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis; nor doth Bellarmine say, that Damascene denied the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son, though your put these down in a distinct letter, as Bellarmine's very words. This is false play.  who thus writes: An Image of the King is nothing else but the form & shape of the King, which could it speak, would, and might truly say, I and the king are one, the king is in me, and I in him, so that who adoreth me his Image, doth therein adore the very King. Thus he: showing that the king's Image, is to be imagined, and by Imagination to be conceived as the very king.   

The third Argument.  
This Principle, that Images by Imagination must stand for their Prototype, and what is done by way of honour unto the Image is done mentally to the person, is canonised by the holy Scripture, & we warranted to conclude by the light thereof our obligations of worship. God in the old Testament appointed, that the Tabernacle should be taken, by Imagination, as his House, The Propitiatory as his Seat, The Ark as his footstool, and so he Imagined there present as sitting with his feet on the Ark. This ordination supposed, the Prophet David Psalm 99.5. argueth, that we are bound to adore the Ark that represents God, as his footstool, saying: Adore his footstool, because he is holy. As if he had said, God being holy, and most highly to be adored, makes the thing holy and venerable, that hath the office to represent him, as if he were corporally present before our eyes. The Ark hath the office of his footstool▪ and to represent him as by Imagination present with his feet upon it. Therefore adore the Ark, Adore this his footstool, because he is 
(g) Unto this text the Minister pag. 260. frameth two Answers: first, that the israelites did not adore the material Ark, but God himself before the Ark. In proof hereof he brings 1. Sam. 1.19. where is said of Elcana and his wife, They rose in the morning early & worshipped before the Lord. Answer. This text showeth the contrary that they adored the Ark before the Lord, that is, in his presence bowing outwardly to the Ark, by inward affection unto the Lord Imagined as there present, according to the word of the Prophet, Adore his foostoole. Secondly, the Minister answereth, that the Ark was adored by God's special commandment (and so are not Images) citing to this purpose the foresaid verse of this Psalm, Adore his footstool for he is holy. This is frivolous. For the Prophet doth not say that there is any special commandment to adore the Ark (for then he would have said, Adore the Ark, because God so commands) but he shows, what was due in reason unto the Ark, in regard it was to be considered as an Image of the Holy of holyes, imagined as sitting with his feet upon it, saying, adore his fotstole, because he is holy, not because there is a special positive precept so to do (for no such precept is found in Scripture,) but because this is consequent out of the principles of the law of Nature; for that reason teacheth that the sanctity of God, makes any thing that must in special sort stand for him, even his footstool, venerable, and so to be bowed unto, in respect of the Holy of Holyes imagined as sitting upon it. As when David saith, praise the Lord because he is good. Psa. 117. he delivers not a positive, but shows that it is essential duty unto God in respect of his Goodness: so likewise the Prophet saying, adore his footstool because he his Holy, doth show what is due unto God essentially in respect of his holiness, to wit, that that which represents him to the imagination, as if he were corporally present, be holy, and adored for his sake.  holy. Where note that the obligation to take the Ark as an Image of God sitting upon it, is a positive ordinance, the Ark not binding men so to do of his own nature, not being a proper Image of God; yet this positive institution supposed, the Law of nature binds men to worship & adore the Ark with reference unto the holy adored person, imagined as sitting thereon.   

The fourth Argument.  
With this Principle so received in nature we must join another noless known and notorious in Christianity, to wit, that God full of all honour and glory, to whom all adoration & worship is due, became truly and verily Man, as visible and aspectable as any other man, and consequently as Imaginable, that he may be figured by an Image, no less truly and distinctly then another man. In which Image the hands, feet & other parts shall truly by Imagination correspond to the feet, hands, and parts of the prototype, and our Imagination from it pass directly and immediately unto Christ, and his parts, proportionable to those we behold in the Image: so that when we adore with an humble outward kiss of hands and feet the Image, by inward Imagination, Conceit, and Affection we kiss & adore the Imagined true hands, and feet of Christ. Neither are these Imaginations false and erroneous, seeing (as Philosophy teacheth) no falsehood is in mere apprehension or Imagination, without judging the thing to be as we Imagine. As in contemplation men represent and imagine themselves as standing before God's throne in the Court of heaven amidst the quires of Saints and Angels, praising & honouring him in their society, not judging themselves to be truly and really in heaven (that were a falsehood & dotage) but only apprehending in themselues such a presence, and behaving themselves outwardly and inwardly in prayer, as if they were present. To which kind of Imaginations, as pious and goodly, the Scriptures and Fathers exhort us. In this sort beholding the Image of Christ▪ we apprehend 
(h) The Minister objects pa. 223. lin. 16. one may imagine the sun, or a lamb to be the figure of Christ, & conceive them as his Image, and yet it is not lawful by one and the same affection to worship these Creatures with their Creator. I Answer. This hath been refuted already. For these creatures be but types and figures of our Saviour, which types and figures have no right in nature with out positive institution to bind men's Imaginations to conceive by them our Saviour as if he were present, nor consequently to Imagine, what is done unto them, is done unto him. But the proper Images of our Saviour have right in nature to bind man's Imaginations to conceive our Saviour in his Image as present in this sort. Wherefore he that will not conform his Imagination to this pious institute of Nature, but will think he may deface the proper Image of his Lord, without injury to his person, doth by that defacing commit impiety towards Christ, his Imaginations not having that rectitude towards so great a Lord, as natural piety doth exact. For piety towards our Lord requires of man, that his Imaginations be respective of every thing, that hath by consent of men right of reference towards him.  him as therein present, not judging the Image to be Christ, but imagining, and taking it as if it were Christ. That when we outwardly honour the Image by kissing the hands & feet thereof, mentally by imagination and humble affection of reverence, we adore and kiss the most venerable hands and feet of his precious body.   

The fifth Argument.  
The Histories of Christian Antiquity are full of holy Men, Bishops, Kings, Queens, and other honourable Personages, who have cast themselves down on the ground, before Beggars, Lazars, and lepers, kissing their feet and their sores out of reverend affection unto Christ. In which kind, memorable is the charity of the famous Queen Matildes daughter of Edgar King of Scotland, and wife to Henry the first of England, whose custom was to wash with her own hands, the feet of poor people, amongst whom were Lepers, and such as had loathsome diseases, not disdaining with great Reverence on her knees to kiss their feet with her princely lips. And when as the Prince of Scotland her brother, being then in the Court of England entering into her chamber, found her employed in so humble service, astonished thereat, rebuked her, saying: Sister what do you? can you with those your defiled lips kiss the king your husband? She answered: Know brother, that the feet of the King of heaven are more lovely and venerable then are the lips of an Earthly king. Certainly this Queen with all other addicted to the like devotion, when they kissed the feet of the poor outwardly with their lips, did by Imagination full of reverend affection, kiss the feet of Christ jesus, taking the poor as Images of 
(i) 
The Minister answereth this argument with a demand pag. 225. lin. 26. Where I pray you hath our Saviour said of Images of wood and stone, nay of Puppets and pranked Babies, what ye do to one of these my least ones, ye do unto me, as he said of the poor? I answer. That the images of our Lord, stand for our Lord so, that what is done by way of honour, or dishonour unto them, is to be taken as done unto him, is evident in the light of nature, not only to learned men, but even to women & children; and none deny it but such in whom Passion against truth hinders the right use of common Reason. Hence there was no need, that this truth should be expressly set down in the Scripture, though the Scripture in some of her discourses doth intrinsencally suppose the same; for the testimony, whereof we have already spoken, Adore the footstool of his feet, because he is holy, doth suppose that w●at represents God unto the imagination, as if he were visibly present, is to be worshipped for his sake.  
On the other side that what is done unto poor beggars and lazars by way of relief and comfort, is to be taken as done unto Christ, as he was once poor and needy for our sakes upon earth, is not evident in the light of reason, nor can be known but by divine Revelation. Hence it was convenient that the same should be often and expressly set down in Scripture for the comfort and encouragement of Christians, the more to inflame them unto Charitable works. Where we may observe, that the Word of God only saith, that what is done to the poor by way of comfort and relief, is done unto Christ, not what is done by way of honour, and yet Christian Charitable people have not only relieved, but also reverenced these poor people, in respect of this their reference unto Christ. And how this? But by grounding themselves upon this principle evident in the light of nature, Whatsoever is done by way of honour to the image of Christ jesus, that is, unto the thing which represents him unto imagination, as if he were visibly present, is to be taken as done to his very person. Wherefore seeing the poor by the ordinance of God's word, stand for our Saviour, and are his images, so that when we see them poor and needy, we must imagine we see him poor and needy; hence it is consequent that what is done unto them, not only by way of relief, but also by way of reverence, is done unto our Saviour, and so they may be worshipped for his sake. As for the title of puppets and pranked Babies, if the Minister think it a fine phrase, he may keep it to adorn therewith his own Brats.   him, who said, What you do to one of my least ones, you do it unto me. Matth. 25. v. 40.  
Out of this, the common Objection of Protestants, to wit, that the worship of Christ's Image is no where found in Scripture, and therefore it is a Will-worship, may be answered; For as themselves confess (see D. Field l. 4. c. 14.) many actions belong to Religion, whereof there is no express precept, nor any practice in Scripture, which prove the lawfulness and necessity thereof. There is no express precept in Scripture to christian Infants nor is it there read, that ever any were Christened; yet because there be Testimonies which joined with reason, prove the lawfulness & necessity of this Baptism, we may & must use it. In Scripture there is no express practice, nor precept of worshipping the Image of Christ, yet there be principles which (the light of nature supposed) convince such Adoration to be lawful & necessary.   

The sixth Argument.  
Christ being true God, full of honour, to whom all supreme Adoration is due, doth, and must needs make honourable and adorable any thing that representeth him, that is, which must be taken by Imagination, as if it were his person. But supposing God to be truly Man (as faith teacheth) the light of nature showeth, that his Image truly representeth him, that is, makes him present to the imagination of the beholders thereof, and stands for him. Ergo, Christ jesus his Image is for his sake Venerable & Adorable as a thing standing for him, in such sort, that the honour done outwardly to it, is done, and aught to be taken as done (by devout & pious imagination) to his person. Whence further is concluded the necessity of this worship▪ For God Incarnate being most venerable and full of glory, requires of a Christian that, that which stands for him, & represents him be honoured & 
(k) This Argument is grounded upon this Principle of Scripture, that all kind of honour & worship is due to the man Christ jesus, which can be due unto any other man whom we are bound to respect. But unto other persons whom we are bound to respect, we own reverence in their Images more or less according to their dignity. And this duty is double, the one negative, never to disgrace their Images; the other affirmative which is actually to exhibit honour unto their Images, when otherwise the denial thereof will be taken as irreverence & contempt towards them. Therefore to the Image of Christ we own this double duty of honour, negative, never to disgrace it, positive, to reverence the same outwardly, when otherwise the neglect of reverence to his Image is, and aught to be taken as want of due reverence to his person.  adored for his sake   

The Seaventh Argument.  
If the honour due to a King be so great, that the same redounds from his person to things about him, as to his Chair of state (which is honoured with the like bowing and kneeling that is used to his person) & to his Image unto which whosoever offereth injury is punishable, as offering injury to the king himself; Shall not the honour due to Christ jesus infinitely greater, so flow out of his person unto things that belong and concern him, as to make his 
(l) The Minister pag. 228. saith this similitude halteth, because the king's Chair of state, & his image when it is honoured or dishonoured, are conjoined with his person by civil ordinance and relation. I Answer. This is a manifest falsehood, for what law is in England that every image of the king is to be taken as his person in respect of honour? There is no such law written with pen and ink, but only the law of nature written by the fingar of the Creator in men's hearts and observed universally in all nations by custom, that the proper image of a person is in respect of honour & dishonour to be taken as the person.  Image, Cross, and such holy Monuments of his Passion and Life Venerable for his sake, and to be adored with bowing, kneeling, and other exterior honour, as would be used to his person were he visibly present? not so, that the worship rest in the Image, but be referred by imagination and affection to the person imagined. But the Image of Christ being a true representation of God incarnate, & able to convey our Imagination directly & truly towards him, corresponding very particularly unto the parts of his sacred person, hath a right in reason, & nature which cannot be taken from it, to represent him, and to stand in our imagination for him. Wherefore the Image of Christ hath a right, which without impiety cannot be denied unto it, to be honoured and outwardly adored for his sake, by kneel, bowings, embrace, & kiss referred in mind by devout thoughts and affections to his person.   

The eight Argument.  
And this right is a 
(m) The Minister here is hot, and demands pag. 230. lin. 8. Hath a dead picture or worm-eaten statue greater dignity than the lively Images of Christ, to wit, the saints that are on earth and excel in virtue? I Answer, that no: yet the Image of Christ hath a dignity which no other dumb, dead, and senseless Creature (of which the Answerer here speaks) can have, to wit, to represent our Saviour according to his true or proper humane shape. Whence it hath a right in nature to stand by imagination for our Saviour, and to bind us that our actions towards it be not respectless.  dignity which an Image of Christ hath above other creatures, who though they be referred unto God as unto their Author, yet God may not be honoured in them in that manner as Christ is honoured in his Image. The reason is, because creatures represent God their Author so rudely, remotely, darkly imperfectly that only spiritual men and 
(n) Note against the Ministers cavilling, that God may be two ways known by visible creatures. First, only abstractively, to wit, that he is, and hath many divine perfections. In this manner Heathen Philosophers who were not perfect contemplants did by creatures know God. Secondly, in a kind of intuitive and contemplative manner, which is, when presently upon the sight of a creature we are moved with reverence towards the Creator, as if we saw him present therein. This presence of God perfect contemplants only arrive unto, and unto these men only the creatures serve as Images and mirrors of God. Such as are yet imperfect as they cannot thus presently behold the Godhead in his creatures, must help themselves with the sight of his sacred humanity, in the Images of the mysteries of his holy life.  perfect Contemplants can readily acknowledge God in them, and so such men only, and that only privately to themselves, may worship God in, and by them, which is all that Vasquez (so much accused) doth teach. But as for public & promiscuous adoring of Creatures, he condemneth it, as undecent and scandalous, saying expressly, (l. 3. de adorat. c. 1.) that Indiscriminatim creaturas adorandas proponere, esset multis manifesta causa periculi. In which respect (S. Leo serm. 7. de Nat. Dom.) reprehends some Christians at Rome that bowed unto the sun, mentally referring that bowing unto God the Author thereof, because Paynims seeing that outward action of adoring, might imagine that Christians adored the Sun in their superstitious manner, the relation which the Sun hath to God as to his Creator, not being evident unto sight, nor by imagination apprehended. But the Image of Christ (as I said) is apparently so representative 
(o) The Minister pag. 233. saith, if he may speak his opinion, he seethe no reason why the Sun, or an Ass may not stand in our Imaginations for God his maker, and we worship him referring the external bowing, and kissing of the Ass unto God, even aswell as the Image of Christ jesus crucified may stand for him by imagination, and be bowed unto, out of inward reverence unto him. Answer. This is spoken only in spleen against holy Imags, otherwise I cannot think the Minister can be so gross of conceit. For what Christian so wild and void of common sense as not to perceive by the very instinct of nature a difference betwixt the Image of a crucified man, and the Ass, in respect of standing for our Saviour? If an Ass may (as the Minister saith) represent our Saviour, and stand by Imagination for him, & be bowed unto for his sake, as much as his crucified shape and picture in stone, wood, or paper, why may not an Ass (I pray you) represent the Minister, & stand in men's Imagination for him, aswell as the picture of a man in a Ministerial weed set in the beginning of his book?  of Christ, that upon sight thereof our thoughts fly presently unto him, and his picture is no sooner in our eyes, than his person by imagination in our mind. Neither is there any excellency appearing in the picture worthy to be adored, or sufficient to stay our thoughts and affections in it. So that no man can with any probability suspect that any reason besides reverence to his Majesty, makes us bow our bodies to his Image.   

The ninth Argument.  
Nor doth it folllow, that if we worship the Image of Christ and the cross that he died on, that we should also adore judas his lips which touched our Saviour his sacred mouth, when he gave him that traitorous kiss; For 
(p) What the Minister hath said in answer of this argument, is showed to be full of ignorance and folly, in the Censure Sect. 3. §. 7.  it is easy to show many main differences betwixt judas his lips, and the Crosse. First, judas his lips were conjoined substantially with judas that none could bow or bend unto them, or kiss them, without seeming to bow, & to do honour unto his person, in regard he being an intellectual creature, was an object capable of veneration, terminated and stayed in his own person. But the Cross being a senseless thing, is not an object sufficient to stay veneration within itself, neither is it a part belonging to the substance of any wicked man that concurred unto the punishing of our Saviour, but rather was fixed unto, and joined to his body, and so the outward bowing to the Cross is done mentally, & is taken as done only unto Christ, whom we behold as stretched thereon.  
Secondly, the Cross, the Nails, the Lance, & other such instruments being senseless creatures, may be thought off as things sanctified by the touch of our Saviour's body, they not having any thing in them contrary to the sanctity of Christ, & so could not hinder the conceit of such imputed sanctity. But judas being most wicked and detestable, and full of the most horrible Treason that ever was, did so defile & profane his whole person, and all the parts thereof, that the mere touch of our Saviour's most sacred mouth could not sanctify, nor make holy unto Christian Imagination, his lips, without changing and sanctifying his hart. For so long as he continueth without repenting his treason, the lively remembrance of that execrable fact doth so possess a Christian hart, as no respectful thought to him can enter into it.  
Finally, the passion of Christ may be considered two ways. First, as proceeding from the will of wicked men, the Devil's instruments to torment him. In which consideration, it is not grateful unto God, but a detestable sin in the Authors thereof. Secondly, it may be considered as received in the body of Christ, as abiding and continuing in his sacred person admitted into his hart, and 
(q) The Minister his calumniation that the jesuits, or Loyalists hold that the Cross, and nails were offered by Christ to his Father at his Passion, and the world redeemed with wood and iron, is discovered in the Censure Sect. 3. §. 5. together with the exorbitancy of his railing.  offered unto his father for the sins of the world, and by this consideration it is sacred and venerable. The lips of judas betraying Christ, as the hands also of the wicked Minister that struck him in Caiaphas his house, and other like instruments conjoined with wicked persons, were instruments of Christ's Passion, as it proceeded from their wicked hearts, and consequently as it was a detestable action But the Cross, the Nails, and the Lance that stayed in, and were joined to the body of Christ, were Instruments of Christ's Passion as it was lodged in his sacred person, and as offered to his heavenly Father, and consequently as of a thing most highly venerable.  
Out of all which I may conclude, that Christ jesus being a true man, his Image hath a most evident and undeniable right to represent him, & so to be honoured for his sake.    

That this Worship was ever since the Apostles in the Church, without beginning. §. 2.  
THE disagreeing of Protestants about the time when worship of Images began, is a sufficient Argument that there is no certain beginning thereof 
(r) Because the Minister here cavilleth, that this discourse is uncoherent; Note, that the Answerer doth here suppose some things proved before. First, that there is a known tradition & historical succession extant of the Roman Church and of her Bishops, and their chief actions in matter of Religion. Secondly that therefore such a notable change as is pretended by Protestants, made by these Bishop's turning Christian Religion into open Idolatry could not have been without famous no●e thereof, according to time and persons, delivered unto posterity by report written and unwritten. This supposed his discourse is consequent and convincing; for thus the argues: Had adoration of the Images of our Saviour been brought into the Church since the Apostles, against the Religion planted by them, the beginning thereof would have been famously known by historical tradition written or unwritten. But the time of the beginning of this pretended Idolatrizing is not noted by fame, nor by any full Tradition delivered unto us. This is proved, because Protestants that go about to set down the time of the first entrance of this worship into the Church by degrees since the Apostles, vary among themselves, and their best narrations are convinced of manifest falsehood, whereby it is clear they feign. That the best of their disagreeing relations be thus false, the Answerer showeth, because the best and most esteemed relation may seem that of M. john White, which hath been so often printed, and reprinted, and wherewith so many are deluded (or if this not the best, let our Minister show a better which he hath neither done, nor endeavoured to do). But john Whites relation is patched together of most intolerable gross falsehoods in every point wherein he pretends beginning, and beginners. This the Answerer shows unanswerably.  assignable; but because it were long to set down all their disagreeing assertions, I will only declare what M. john White, brother to my adversary in his book printed and reprinted many times, saith thereabout, that your Majesty may by this example understand with how little sincerity the best esteemed Protestant Ministers handle controversyes, to the deception of many Christian souls, his words are these: First 
(s) john White in his way p. 152. §. 35. n. 13.  there was no Image graved or painted (saith 
(t) In Cathechism.  Erasmus) no not the Image of Christ himself to be set in Churches, & this appeareth by the 
(u) Epiphan. ep. ad joan. Concil. Eliber. c. 36.  testimony of the Ancients. Secondly, when they began to be used, the Church of Rome 
(x) Greg. Ep. 3. l. 7. indict. 2. & li. 4. ep. 9  forbade the Worship of them, as appeareth by the Epistles of Gregory to Serenus; & Polidore 
(y) De inven. l. 6. c. 13.  a Papist confesses all Fathers condemned the Worship of Images for fear of Idolatry. Afterward the Council of Nice 
(z) Act. 7.  brought in this worship, decreeing nevertheless that no Image should be adored with (Latria) Divine honour. At the last, Thomas Aquinas 
(a) 3. p. q. 25. act. 3. & 4▪  and the Trent Council 
(b) Sess. 25.  expounded by the jesuits 
(c) Vasquez de adorat. l 2▪ c. 4. Suarez tom. 2. disp. 54. sect. 4.  taught, that divine honour should be given unto them.  
Thus he. Which in my judgement is sufficient to make any judicious man mislike Protestant writers, that defend their Religion by such palpable untruths. For (to begin with his last saying and so upward) what can be more false, then that the 
(d) 
Two things you here device for defence of your Brother. First you say pag. 241. lin. 25. that the determination in the Council, in this and in many other articles, is like Apollo his riddles, so ambiguous, as no wonder your Brother was deceived. I Answer that the Council of Trent allows only bowing before Images, with inward reference of the adoring affection unto Christ, as any man that shall peruse the decree will presently perceive. Secondly, though the meaning of the Council were dark & obscure, yet whether the Council gave a command in this form of words, some Images are to be worshipped with latria, cannot be obscure, nor can any mistake theirin, but only misrelate against his knowledge, through desire to deceive.  
Now your Brother chargeth the Council with giving a command in this very form of words in his Way of digressions from the Church digress. 49. numero 5 pag. 345. lin. 10. The Church of Rom (saith he) commands that s●me Images be worshipped, with Divine honour, the very same that is due to God himself. The words with Divine honour are set in a distinct letter, and the Council of Trent is cited as commanding in this form of speech, in the 25. Session thereof, where no such words are found in any part of the Council. Is not this inexcusable lying?  
Secondly, for his excuse ibidem lin. 33. you say, That which induced my Brother to charge the Trent Masters with defining Divine worship of images, was their silence in condemning the teachers of such divine worship, but especially the practice of the late Pontificians, that since the Council teach Divine worship of Images. Answer. First, though later Divines did teach Divine worship to be given to some Images, yet this would not excuse your Brother from being guilty of belying the Council. For your Brother doth not only say, that some Pontificians so hold, but that the Church of Rome defines, & commands Divine worship of Images, citing the Council of Trent Sess. 25. so defining in as many words. Is not this kind of lying damnable, as being gross in matter of religion & salvation? Secondly, you either ignorantly mistake, or wilfully pervert the meaning of those Divines, as the Answerer doth show in the next paragraph.   Council of Trent taught that Divine worship is to be given unto Images, there being no such words in the whole Council? As for the jesuit, Vasquez whom he citeth, as so expounding the Council, no such doctrine is found in him, either in the place quoted by the Minister, or in any part of his works, yea the contrary is found l. 2. de adorat. disp. 9 c. 3. It is not (quoth he) to be said, that divine honour is given unto Images. Neither doth Suarez the other jesuit cited, expound the Council to give divine worship unto Christ's Image, but only saith, that out of the Council it may be gathered, that the Image of Christ, and Christ, are honoured by one and the same act of worship, which as referred unto Christ, is Divine worship, as referred unto the Image, not divine worship but inferior veneration. For as he declareth in 3. part. To. 1. disp. 54. Sect. 3. ad 7. Ille actus respectu prototypi est propriè Latria etc. respectu viz. Imaginis, non est tam perfecta adoratio, sed inferior veneratio. The worship of Christ and his Image though one and the same Physical act, is virtually two fold, being divine honour towards Christ, not divine, but a kind of inferior honour towards the Image.  
Nor is M. Whites [Way pag. 400] Argument good, We worship Christ and his Image by the same act, but the worship of Christ is divine honour. Ergo, the worship of the Image is divine honour. For this proveth only that the worship of the Image and of Christ being one and the same act, is divine as referred to Christ, not as referred unto the Image. Otherwise if M. White should help to pull his fellow-Ministers horse out of the mire, moved thereunto out of christian charity and friendship, one might by the like argument prove that he beareth christian charity towards horses, for he reliueth the horse, and pleasureth his friend by one and the same act. The pleasuring of his friend is an act of christian charity towards him. Ergo the pullinge of the horse out of the mire is an act of christian charity towards the horse. A foolish argument, because that one act is virtually twofold; as referred to the man owner of the horse christian charity, as referred to the horse only, no charity at all, but a base kind of love, and that for his friend's sake. The like is when we kiss with our corporal lips the feet of the Image of Christ, at the same time by devout and reverend Imagination kissing his true feet represented by the Image, we honour Christ & his Image by one and the same Physical act, and that act is divine worship, though not divine as referred to the Image, but only as referred unto Christ. A thing so easily understood by learned men, as I marvel Ministers understand it not, or wrangle in a matter so clear, if they sincerely seek truth. And though the ignorant understand not the terms of Theology, by which Divines declare the manner of honouring the Prototype, and the Image, both by one act, yet may they honour an Image, as securely & with as little danger of erring as any that understands them. For as the Clown who knows no more of the nature of motion, then that he is to set one foot before another, doth move in the very same manner as Philosophers, who explicate that action by terms most obscure, of intrinsecal and extrinsecall beginning and ending, and per ultimum non esse, & primum non esse; so likewise a catholic that understands no more of honouring Christ his Image, then that he is by beholding the Image to remember Christ, and with pious & affectuous imagination to adore him, doth honour our Saviour & his Image by one and the same act, as truly, verily, & religiously as the greatest Divine that can learnedly explicate the manner how that adoration is performed as being done outwardly, relatively, and transitorily unto the Image, affectuously, absolutely, finally unto Christ.  
Secondly, whereas he sayeth, That the council of Nice brought in the worship of Images, yet forbade that any Image should be adored with Divine honour, he both contradicts himself, and uttereth another manifest falsehood. He contradicts himself in saying that the Nicene council forbade divine worship of any Image, seeing in another place he thus writeth, Defence pag. 453. Both the Council of Nice, and the Divines of the Church of Rome hold the Images of God, and our Saviour, and the Cross must be adored with Divine adoration 
(e) The Minister hath not a word to say in excuse of this contradiction and falsehood of his Brother. . It is apparently false that the said Nicene council brought in the worship of Images, which might be proved by many Testimonies, but this one may suffice, 
(f) Zonara's in Leone Isaurico & Paulus Diaconus in miscella. lib. 21. Accusabat omnes antecessores Principes quasi Idololatrae fuissent, propter adorationem sanctarum Iconum.  that Leo Isauricus before the council of Nice opposed Image-worshippe, not as then beginning, but for many years before established in the church, boasting, that he was the first Christian Emperor, the rest having been Idolators, because they worshipped Images, so manifestly did he oppose antiquity, and so little truth there is in M. Whites 
(g) The Minister saith that the Nicene Synod brought in the practice of worshipping of Images, by definition, not simply. For the Israelites worshipped melted Images in Dan and Bethel, and the Symonians worshipped Images, Euseb. Eccles. Historia lib. 2. c. 13. The Gnostics worshipped the Image of Christ. ●ren l. 1. c. 13. Answer. By this may appear, that so you satisfy your spleen ●n comparing us to Idolaters, you care not how little you speak to the purpose. The question is, who first brought in the worship that for many age's hath been used universally by Christians towards the Images of Christ and his Saints? You answer, not the Nicene Synod simply, but ●efore that Council the Israelites worshipped melted Images in Dan & ●e●hel and the Synomians worshipped Images, to wit, of Simon Magus and ●elen his strumpet: were these the Images of Christ, & his blessed mother? The Gnostics also worshipped the Image of Christ and of Paul sacrificing unto it, and not only unto it, but also with it, unto the Images of Homer, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and other profane men, as Irenaeus relate● li. 2. c. 24. and Epiphan. heres. 27. the like did Marcellina noted by S. Aug. de Haeres. haeres. 23. Is this the Catholic custom of worshipping Images?  Assertion.  
Thirdly, to pass yet up higher, that Images began in Gregory the great his time, and that he forbade the worship of them, contains other three falsehoods. First Gregory is abused, who only 
(h) What the Minister saith pag. 248. lin. 2●. that Gregory did not approve that Images should be worshipped any way, is not only against Friar Bale, but also against the plain words of Gregory, who saith expressly lib. 7. Epist. 5. that worship or veneration is due to the Cross of Christ, and Image of the blessed Virgin. Wherefore when elswher (lib. 7. Epist. 10.11.) he saith, that Images are no ways to be adored, this is to be understood according as himself expounds himself, l. 7. Epist. 53. non tanquam Deus, Images are not to be worshipped as God. And again we prostrate ourselves before the Image, not as before the deity, but we adore him, whom by his Image we remember as borne, or as crucified, or as sitting in glory. Where he teacheth two things: first that 〈◊〉 must prostrate ourselves before our Saviour's Image: secondly, that 〈◊〉 hart and affection, we must worship the divine Sampler, our Sauio●● person.  commanded that none should worship Images as Gods, believing as Gentiles did that some Godhead was affixed to them, as he elsewhere declareth 
(*) Lib. 7. ep. 53. Non ut eam tanquam Deum colas.  himself. And so manifestly did he teach Image-worship establishing pilgrimages unto them by Indulgence, as 
(*) Bale pag●● of Popes pag. 24. & 25. Symonds on the revelation pag. 57  Friar Bale accuseth him thereof. Yea M. Symonds, and M. Bale write, tha● Leo 140. years before Gregory decree● the worship of Images.  
Secondly, Polidore in this point is egregiously falsifyed, for he saith not, as the Minister makes him speak, All fathers condemned the worship of Images, for fear 〈◊〉 Idolatry: But his words are, Cultum imagnum (teste Hieronymo) omnes veteres patr● damnabant metu Idololatriae, all old father (as Hierome witnesseth) did condemns worship of Images for fear of Idolatry by the old Father's meaning the Father's o● the Old Testament, not of the New; whi●● appears because in proof of his saying 〈◊〉 brings not the Testimony of 
(i) The Minister saith pag. 250. lin. 11. that Polidore nameth Gregory amongst the old Fathers that condemned the worship of Images for fear of Idolatry, as Hierome, doth witness. Answer. This is false and impossible. For Gregory living all most two hundred years after the death of S. Hierome, how could he be one of the old Fathers whom S. Hierome witnesseth to have condemned Image-worship, for fear of Idolatry? Gregory then is named by Polidore not amongst the old Fathers, but as one of the new Fathers, that is, Fathers of the new Testament, as seeming to speak against Image-worship, but in truth doth not, as hath been said.  any Father of the New Testament, but only of the old, as of Moses, David, Hieremy, and other Prophets. And the scope of the whole chapter is to declare, that the reason why in the old Testament the Fathers misliked the worship of Images of God, was because they could not paint him aright, Cùm Deum nemo vidisset unquam, because than no man had seen God 
(k) The Minister saith, that the jews at least might have adored the Images of Prophets, if such adoration had been lawful, as the Papists hold. Answer. In the same manner I argue. The jews might have made the Images of their holy Prophets if the making of them had been lawful, as Protestants hold. Let the Minister prove by God's word they made them, & I will prove they worshipped them. Let him, I say, show that Images of Prophets were set in the beginning of their Prophecies, as his is set in the frontispiece of this his Reply, and I promise him to prove the same were honoured. This is the thing whereof we require example in Scripture, and wherein the Minister is as dumb as a fish, not able to show one proper Image of an adored person, lawfully made, that might not lawfully be adored. . Afterwards God (saith Polidore) having taken flesh, and being become visible to mortal eyes, men flocked to him, and did without doubt behold and reverence his face shining with the brightness of Divine light, and even then they began to paint, or carve his image already imprinted in their minds. And these Images they received with great worship and veneration, as was reason, the honour of the Image redounding to the original (as Basill writes:) which custom of adoring Images, the Fathers were so fare from reproving, as they did not only admit thereof, but also decreed, and commanded the same by General Counsels in the time of Constantine the fourth and justinian the second his son. And therefore what man is there so dissolute & audacious as can dream of the contrary, and doubt of the Lawfulness of this Worship established so long ago by decree of most holy Fathers? Thus writeth Polidore, and much more to the same purpose in the very place where the Minister Citeth him to the contrary; which shows, how notoriously his credulous readers are abused in matters of most moment. Hence appeareth the third falsehood, that in Gregoryes days images began to be set up in Churches; which to have been in the Churches long before, the Testimonies of S. Basill, Paulinus, Lactantius, and Tertullian do sufficiently witness.  
Neither can our Adversary bring any clear testimony of antiquity against this custom. For the decree of the Council 
(l) The Minister saith, that some Pontificians grant that this Council forbade the making of images, so clear is their decree against them. I Answer: such Authors had no reason in the world, to be so persuaded of this Council, but only the words of the decree. Now the words of the decree be not clear, yea they cannot admit that sense being compared with the words that immediately follow, as the jesuit doth demonstrate: In so much as the Minister to frame an argument out of this decree, is forced (ridiculously) to curtail the text, & take some few words, leaving the rest. Such is his obstinacy against the light of truth.  of Eliberis, that no Picture should be made in the Church, lest that which is worshipped or adored be painted on walls (which the Minister [weigh pag. 345.] much urgeth) clearly signifieth the contrary. For may not Images painted on tables, be in Churches, and yet neither made in the Church, nor painted on walls? which kind of Images the Council doth not forbid. And why doth the Council forbidden Images to be made in the Church as pertinent to the fabric thereof, or to be painted on Walls, but out of reverence unto Images? for they being holy things, and so to be honoured for their prototypes sake, the Council thought it unworthy of their dignity, that they should be made on walls where they may easily be defaced and deformed, and by Persecutors (for that Council was held in time of persecution) abused. He doth also [Way pag. 345.] much insist upon Epiphanius, [epist. ad joan. Hicrosol.] but relates (according to his fashion) both his fact & words unsincerely. Epiphanius (saith he) finding an Image painted on a cloth hanging in a Church rend it down, and said, it was against the authority of the Scriptures that any Image should be in the Church. Thus he unsincerely (as I said) not expressing what kind of Image that was, that Epiphanius rend in pieces. For Epiphanius saith: Cùm invenissem imaginem hominis pendentem in E●cl sit tanquam Christi, aut alicuius Sancti, n●scio enim cuius erat, when I had found an Image of a man hanging in the Church, as Christ's or some Saints, for I know not of whom the Image was. Epiphanius 
(m) Here the Minister raileth most intolerably, crying, that the testimonies are clear; but not so much as endeavours to answer the jesuits arguments that are demonstrative, as much as any can be in this kind of matter. The Ministers arguments on the other side have no force at all being two, proposed in a double interrogation. If (saith he pag. 254. lin. 2.) Epiphanius himself did not remember whose Image it was, whether of Christ, or of a Saint, or of some profane man, how knows this jesuite, that it was the Image of a profane person? I Answer. That Epiphanius did know that it was not Christ's image, nor any Saints, but some profane people, though he knew not determinately, what profane persons the same was. For Epiphanius would not have urged the unlawfulness of hanging that image in the Church, in regard it was a man's Image, had he not understood a profane man's. Hence his second interrogation is answered, why was Epiphanius silent and did not say it was some profane man's? Answer. Epiphanius was not silent that the image he tore in pieces was the image of a profane man, seeing he termeth it the Image of a man hanging in the Church, as Christ's, or some Saints. And this the maintainers knew well enough, for if this picture had been Christ's, or some Saints used by way of devout remembrance, they would have accused Epiphanius of impiety towards Christ, and his Saints, and not only of injustice in renting in pieces the Cloth, without paying the price thereof, saying, si scindere voluerat, iustum erat ut aliud daret velum, & mutaret.  doth by this relation more than insinuate that this was the Image of some profane man hanging in the Church, as if it had been a sacred Image of Christ, or of some Saint, which is gathered by his reason: When I saw, saith he, against the authority of the Scriptures, the Image of a man hanging in the Church; not absolutely any Image (as M. White citeth him, for even by Gods express command Images were placed in the Temple) but the Image of a man. Why doth Epiphanius so much urge the impiety of the fact, in regard that it was the Image of a man, but that he understood by the word (Man) a mere ordinary profane man, not a blessed Saint. For certainly it might seem more against the authority of Scriptures to make and set up in churches the image of God, than the image of holy men, & the image of Christ according to his godhead, them as he is a man; so that there was no cause, why 
(n) The Minister here setteth down other answers given by Catholics unto this place of Epiphanius, some of which he would have thought better than this of the jesuit, and that the jesuits is slighted by Bellarmine; which discourse is to little purpose. This is certain, that if other solutions he better than this, yet this is so good, as the Minister hath not been able to speak a wise word against it, as is more largely showed in the Censure. Sect. 1. §. 1. And whereas some authors think, that Epiphanius in regard of the error of the Anthropomorphilaes, whereof he was a great Enemy, did reprove this Image of the Anablathans, as being of God, in the form of man; although this conceit doth not help the Minister's fancy, nor make against us, yet is it not so conform to the text, as is the jesuits. Which any man may perceive that will peruse attentively the text of Epiphanius, and compare these two solutions therewith.  Epiphanius should put so much Emphasis in the word (man) had he not understood a profane man. For some Christians in those Days, being newly converted from Paganism, and so retaining some Relics thereof, did out of their affection to their deceased friends and parents, use to paint their images, and offer unto them oblations of Frankincense & other the like Heathenish honour, especially in their Anniversaryes' Days upon their sepulchres. These men S. Augustine, [de mor. Eccl. c. 36.] reprehends, and not the worshippers of Saints Images, under the title of Sepulchrorum & picturarum adoratores, who to the ghosts of their parents defunct, did (though Christians) offer that Heathenish worship which the Poet exhorteth unto. 
Non pigeat tumulis animas excire paternas,  
Paucaque in extructos mittere thura rogos.  
Parua petunt manes.—  Wherefore seeing this Minister, so much esteemed in the Church of England, in proof of the Roman Churches change brings nothing but manifest falsehoods, so many in so few lines, any indifferent man may conclude, that worship of Images hath continued without change ever since the Apostles. For if any change in such a matter as this had been made, it would have been most evident, when, and by whom so great a Novelty was introduced.   

The places of Exodus & Deut. with no probability urged against the worship of Images by Protestants that make them. §. 3.  
AGAINST Image-worshippe Protestants bring the places of Exodus Chap. 20. v. 4. and 5. and of Deuteronomy Chap. 5. v. 6. and the 7. Thou shalt not have false gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graved Image, or any likeness either in heaven above, or on earth below, or of things that are under waters, or under ground, thou shalt not adore, nor worship them. Which place I wonder they can think strong enough to overthrew a custom, in which the rules of Nature, the Principles of Christianity, the perpetual Tradition of god's Church doth settle Christians. For this place makes against 
(i) Note, that the question between us and Protestants is not whether the Image of an adored person may lawfully be made, for this they grant; but whether the image of an adored person lawfully made may be adored. We affirm, and they deny, but for their denial have not one syllable of Scripture. The Minister pag. 259. lin. 3. brings the brazen Serpent and golden Cherubims that were made yet could not be adored, but these examples are impertinent, as hath been showed, because they were not proper images of adored people whereof we speak, though S. Hierome Epistola 70. also say, that the Golden Cherubims were adored. The Iconomachis, the Turks, and jews who think that to make any image of an adored person is unlawful, & consequently forbidden adoration have for them a little show of Scripture, which saith, thou shalt no make any image, nor adore it. But Protestants, that grant, that the proper images of adored persons may be lawfully made, but deny they may be lawfully adored, have against them the light and instinct of nature, and for them neither any example of Scripture nor any text that may make so much as a little show.  them, or not against us, which I prove thus. The images we are forbidden to worship, we are forbidden to make, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graved Image, thou shalt not adore them, nor worship them. Contrariwise the images we may lawfully make, we may also lawfully adore or worship, if they be images of venerable and adorable persons (as before hath been showed.) But the images we worship of Christ Protestant's make, yea some (to wit Lutherans) set them up in their Churches, and they are images of an adorable Person. Ergo they cannot condemn our adoration of images, except likewise they condemn their making them, as against God's law.  
If they answer, we are not forbidden to make them but only not to make them with purpose & intention to adore them, they discover much partiality, and not so much reverence to God's express 〈◊〉 as they pretend; for the words of God's law are as clear and express against making of Images, as against worshipping of them, Thou shalt not make them, Thou shalt not adore them. If then Protestants to excuse their custom of making of images may to God's express word, Thou shalt not make them, add (by way of explication) with purpose and intention to adore them, why may not 
(k) The Minister pag. 259. objects, that this precept, Thou shalt not make to thyself a graved image, is expounded by the greatest number of Papists, to wit, with purpose to adore. I answer. Some Catholic Interpreters expound, Thou shalt not make any image, to wit, with purpose to worship the same as God, or with divine worship referred unto it, or to some Godhead affixed unto it, not absolutely, not to worship it; which exposition is true for matter, though not so conform to the letter. Now that these Authors do not understand that all honouring of Images is here forbidden, but only adoration of images as Gods or as if some Godhead or divine intellectual virtue were affixed unto them, is evident by their words. For the Authors are Gerson, Caietan, Castro, Oleaster, Stella, Turrecremata, Ferus, Aquinas, but nothing more notorious than that some of these held worship of Images: & the same might be demonstrated of every one. Let the first, to wit Gerson, speak for the rest in his exposition of the ten Commandments. fol. 173. We must (saith he) worship the Images of Christ, his Blessed mother & Saints, not for themselves, but by seeing them, to give honour unto the Holy Person represented by them.  catholics to defend from note of impiety a continued Christian custom, to God's word, Thou shalt not adore any image, add (by way of explication) as God, or with divine worship resting in it? How can they truly boast, they bring Gods clear word for themselves and against us, which is no less clear and express against their image-making, then against our image-worship? If the place be difficile, why build they their faith upon it against us? If it be clear, why be they forced in their defence to departed from the express text?  
Secondly, their exposition is not only violent against the text, but also incongruous against the sense. For God's prohibition of a thing doth also forbid the intention thereof. In the precept, Thou shalt not kill, the intention of murder is sufficiently forbidden: so that he who makes a sword with purpose to murder his enemy, sins against the precept thou shalt not kill. Wherefore if Gods precept had been this, Tho●●● all not wear about thee any weapon, Thou shalt not kill, the prohibition of wearing weapons should have been absolute, and not only with purpose of murder. In like manner, God's precept, Thou shalt not adore Images, doth sufficiently forbid intention to adore them, and consequenly forbids the making of Images with such an intention, so that if the precept not to make Images be nothing else then not to have purpose to adore them, a whole long sentence in the Decalogue is superfluous, & without any special sense. Besides, as to make an Image to adore it is Idolatry, so likewise to take it in hand, or look on it to that purpose; why then was not such looking, or touching with purpose of adoration expressly forbidden aswell as making? Or if looking on them with intention to adore be so included in the precept, Thou shalt not adore, as there needs not that expression; what need was there that making of images with purpose of adoration should be so largely and particularly expressed? Wherefore whosoever is a religious follower of God's pure word must either, without explication, condemn the making of images, together with their worship, or else allow the worship of Images (if the Prototypes be adorable) the making whereof he approves. Hence I gather, that the most natural and truest exposition of that precept is, that it forbids not only the worship, but also the making of any Graved image. But how? to wit, of false Gods, or to represent God according to his Divine Substance 
(l) 
This exposition is showed to be good by the two rules of exposition which Protestant's themselues appoint. The first is, that when a word is ambiguous and difficile, we are to look to the antecedent, and declare the same with reference to them. This text, thou shalt not make any image, is difficil, as sounding over universally, even in Protestants judgements: By looking unto the words immediately precedent, this universality is restrained to a true sense. For the words immediately precedent are, Thou shalt not have false Gods before me. Now, if we expound what followeth, thou shalt not make any Image, by reference unto this, to wit, Thou shalt not make any image of false Gods, the sense is clear truth.  
The second rule is, when a place is difficil, we must expound the same by another speaking of the same matter, that is clear, but the Scripture treating of this precept, doth in the same Chapter Exod. 10.13. clearly declare these forbidden images, to be the images of false Gods, saying, Non facietis Deos argenteos, nec Deos aureos facietis vobis, you shall not make to yourselves Gods of gold or of silver. Behold what is meant by graved Images.  . This sense is gathered out of the words precedent, Thou shalt not have strange Gods before me, which is explicated in the consequent verse, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graved Image, to wit, of false Gods; for he that makes to himself the image of any thing, as apt to represent God according to his Divine substance, and to convey our Imaginations directly to him, doth make, and hath false Gods, because the true God is not imaginable, nor is truly apprehended by imagination conformable unto any Image.  
Wherefore the pictures of the Holy Ghost in form of a Dove, and of God the Father in form of an Old Man, be not proper & direct Images of the two divine persons, but only of the Dove that descended on Christ, and of the Old Man seen by Daniel in a vision, in which the perfections of these persons are not lively represented, but a fare off, and imperfectly shadowed. Nor do catholics use them as proper images standing for their prototypes, & conveying our actions by imagination unto them, for no Catholic doth kiss the feet of the Dove, or lie prostrate at them, referring by imagination that outward subjection to the feet of the holy Ghost, who hath no feet but metaphorical, not imaginable, nor such as can be represented by Image.  
Wherefore seeing this text is thus clearly explicable, and not being explicated at all, doth make no less against Protestants, then against us; I see no reason why they should be so much out of love with the worship of the Image of Christ jesus their Lord, to which Nature & Christianity binds them.   

Inconveniences which may come by occasion of images easily prevented, and their utilityes very great. §. 4.  
ANOTHER argument against images Protestant's much urge, That they be stumbling-blockes for simple People, who easily take an image to be the very God, even as the Pagans' did in former time 
(o) The Minister saith pag. 268. that Papists themselves complain, that People did comnit Idolatry in the worship of imags, to which purpose he cities, Viues, Gerson. Cornelius Agrippa, Durandus Mimatensis, Gabriel Biel. Cassander, Polidore. Answer. First the Minister hath by some trick or other, abused the words of almost every one of these seven, which were over long here to discover. Secondly, the witnesses are of no credit, or speak not to the purpose. Cassander is no Papist but a Protestant, & put, by the Roman Church, amongst heretics of the first rank. Cornelius Agrippa a Necromant, fled for fear of punishment unto the Protestants of France, & there professed what he was. Polidore, Viues, Gerson are noted as full of mistaking in their complaints, and rash in judging, and censuring. Durandus speaks against indiscreet & excessive use of images, that the same may be dangerous, which no man denies. Gabriel Biel derides the simplicity of some people that rather worship fair imags, and such as are trimmed them other. Which simplicity is no more Idolatry, than it is to hear the sermon of a Minister trimmed in his Ruff● and Cuffs more willingly, then of another more simply attired. ; to this purpose bringing some testimonies of S Augustine epist. 19 and in Psal. 113. To this I answer first, that this may seem a great wrong not only to the Christian Church, but also to Christ himself, to think that men endued with his knowledge & faith, and made partakers of the light, whereby they believe most high, divine, and incomprehensible mysteries which he revealed to the world, should so easily be carried away into such blockish Errors, as to think a stock, or a stone to be God; a blindness scarce incident unto men, except they be wholly destitute of all heavenly conceits, and nuzzelled up from their cradles in that persuasion, as Paynims were (of whom only S. Augustine speaks,) for they did not only want this light of Christian instruction, but also were taught by their Ancestors, that in their Idols a kind of Divine virtue, or Godhead was lodged, and affixed unto them; whereas Catholic Doctrine teacheth the contrary, that our Images are bare resemblances of holy persons, no Divinity, no Virtue, no Dignity, no Sanctity that makes them venerable being in them, but in the Prototype.  
Secondly, such Idols as the Paynims adored, many of them did by Devil's means ordinarily speak, give answers, move and exercise other actions of life, so that their speaking was not accounted miraculous and extraordinary, but rather their silence; which speakings were very potente to persuade men to believe what their Ancestors told them, that those very stocks, and stones were Gods, or had a Godhead affixed unto them. Now these kind of things seldom happen in our images, scarce once in a age, and when they hap they are taken as Miracles wrought, not by the images, or any virtue residing in them, but by God's infinite power, nor are they brought to prove any excellency affixed unto the image, but only that God liketh that we should honour our Saviour and his Saints in their images.  
Finally, I dare say, vulgar & ordinary Protestants in England, by reading 
(p) The Minister saith pag. 272. that the Creed is as dangerous in this respect as the Scripture, because it names the right hand of God. Answer. The Creed can import danger neither unto Catholics nor unto Protestants. Not unto Catholics, because with the text of the Creed they receive the Church's explication thereof, which still prevents mistaking of that word. Not unto Protestants, because they must believe the Creed no further than they see the same conform unto Scripture, and so the Scripture attributing Humane shape unto God is only dangerous unto them. For the Scripture perpetually attributes humane shape unto God, and their common people read it by themselves, without any guide whom they be bound to believe further, then by their skill in Scripture they shall find reason.  the Bible in their mother tongue are in greater danger, to believe that God is a body, and hath all the parts thereof even as hath a man, than any the simplest Catholic is to think an image to be God. This is proved to be likely, because it is impossible to conceive God otherwise then in the form of a corporal thing; and as the Orator saith, We easily flatter ourselves to think our shape the fairest, and so the fittest for God. Wherefore it is easy for men to assent to this error, unto which the best and greatest wits that ever were, Tertullian (apud August. heres. 86.) and S. Augustine himself, whilst he was a Manichee, did assent (l. 3. Confess. c. 7.) Much more easily therefore may ignorant 
(q) The Minister saith pag. 272. lin. vlt. That the reading of Scripture by the vulgar is lawful and holy, but the worship of images is always condemned and censured by holy writ. Answer. This is easily said, but can never be proved. For Protestant's cannot bring one text of Scripture, that approves Scripture to be read by the vulgar as Protestants pretend, to wit, with authority to Censure, out of their skill in Scripture, the most Catholic & best Church in the world. Nor will he, or any of his progeny be able to bring one example, or one text that shows, that images of adored persons lawfully made, may not lawfully be adored, which is the Controversy betwixt them and us.  people be deceived therein through weakness of conceit and inclination of nature, when they read the Scripture, describing God as having the form and shape of man, with head, face, eyes, ears, hands, and feet. On the contrary side never any Christian did teach that the image of Christ, is truly Christ, or a living thing, nor ever did any man or woman, except some few, (and those very simple and senseless, (if such histories be true) fall into such foolish imagination. Moreover, children and ignorant people are in the Catholic Church often and plentifully instructed against such errors as by our Catechisms appear, and particularly by jesuits, who make a solemn vow to keep their Institute, especially about teaching the Rudiments of faith unto common and ignorant people. Hence it is that in Towns where they dwell, and Villages about, on Sundays & holy days (besides their sermons for people more intelligent) they teach without fail unto children and men of ruder sort the form of Christian doctrine, and use all industry by giving rewards unto children, and by bestowing alms on poor people to make them willing & diligent in this learning. In the English Church what is done for the instruction of ignorant, in their rudiments of faith by Ministers and Pastors, as I know not much, so will I say nothing, but only, that time they spend in the praises of sole Faith, 
(*) The Minister here saith, that the jesuit doth depress the English Church, accusing their Pastors of negligence; For which cause he termeth him, One, Cui verbosa lingua, cor verò obtenebratum, speaking much in praise of his Church, and of the lively sole Faith they preach. All which is idle, and ridiculous. And as for their sole Faith, if it be the same Luther preached, it is so lively and live-like, as it makes a man to live and not to dye though he commit the deadest works that may be, Whoredom, and Murder a thousand times aday. Luther. Tom. 1. Epist. Latin. fol. 334.  and about the secrets of Predestination, & in long bitter Inuectives against our doctrines, misunderstood (if not purposely misrelated) might (in my opinion) more profitably be spent, in declaring the Creed, and prime Principles of Christianity in plain, and catechistical manner.  
Besides, it is easy for the Roman Church to keep her children from believing that Images be Gods, or true living things, or that any divinity or divine virtue resides in them, as may be proved convincingly (in my judgement) by experience had of her power in this kind about a point more difficile. For what may seem more evident than that a consecrated Host is bread, of which four senses, sight, feeling, smell, taste, give in evidence as of bread, no less verily than any other, so fare as they can discern? And yet so potent is the word & doctrine of the Church, grounded on General Counsels declaring the word of God, for Transubstantiation, as Catholics denying their senses, believe assuredly that what seemeth bread is not bread, but the true body of our Saviour under the forms of accidents of bread. Now can any man with any show of the least probability in the world, think that it is difficile for this Church to persuade her children, that the image of Christ is not a living thing, nor hath any godhead or living divine power lodged in it, as plain Scriptures show, and General Catholic Counsels, particularly the Tridentine (sess. 25.) and the Nicene, act. 7. define, which doctrine neither reason nor sense can mislike? Or shall the sole similitude of members correspondent unto humane living members which images have, so much prevail in catholic minds so to bow down their thought to base Idolatry, as to think a stock or a stone to be a God, and that the Church shall not be able by her teaching to direct them to a more high & divine apprehension, being able to make them firmly believe a consecrated host is not bread, against the judgement that they would otherwise frame upon most notorious evidency of sense? The Protestant's Church on the other side may seem to have no great vigour by preaching to persuade common people against the Error of the Anthropomorphits, seeing their Principle is, that a world of preachers is not to be believed against the evident Scripture, yea 
(r) Hear the Minister is bitter saying p. 277. lin. 30. That it is impossible for Papists to deal sincerely; That his Brother M. john doth not speak of every private man, nor any company of people, but that one Michaia, one Stephen, one Athanasius, with the word of truth in mouth is to be preferred against 4. hundred Baalites. I answer. The Minister denying his Brother spoke of every particular man, shall receive his doom by the breath of his Brothers own mouth, telling him the contrary, who thus writeth in the place cited by the jesuite, to wit, [Way pag. 126. lin. 12.] It is lawful and necessary for EVERY PARTICULAR MAN to try all things, and by the SCRIPTURE to EXAMINE, and to JUDGE of the things the CHURCH teacheth him. And when A MAN in this manner rejects the teaching of a Church, as great and good as the Roman Catholic, his judgement therein is not PRIVATE, as Private is opposed to SPIRITVAL; Nor (saith he, pag. 128. lin. 2. is it impossible for a PRIVATE MAN to espy an error in the best Church that is. And pa. 150. lin. 18. Whereas the Catholics answer, That the text of Scripture, try the Spirits, doth not allow EVERY MAN to do this, but only Pastors; The Minister replieth, this is all false, for the Epistle of S. john speaks indifferently of ALL MEN, Every man by the Rule of Scripture is to try spirits, that Epistle being directed not to the CLERGY, but to the PEOPLE: And the reason added, shows that the PEOPLE are they that must try spirits, for they must try the spirits, that are in danger to be seduced by false Prophets, and such are the PEOPLE, and therefore they must examine them. All these are his brother john's words. Now let the Reader judge whether john White doth not hold that not only extraordinary Prophets as Michaeas, & Stephen, not only chief Patriarches as Athanasius, but that every particular man of the people, may judge of the teaching of the whole Church, and condemn as great a Church as the Protestants, if by his spiritual exposition, or by the spirit he be moved so to do. What reason then had our Minister in respect of this allegation, to be so bitter, as to say, it is impossible ●or Papists to deal sincerely? Verily M. Francis, had you as much natural understanding, together with knowledge of the Protestant Religion, as had your Brother john, you would see this doctrine, that every Private man is by divine Order and Institution to judge of the Church (how absurd soever) to be necessarily consequent of the Protestant Principle, That every man must finally resolve his faith into the light of the Scripture; yea I could show how yourself, even in this reply have given this authority of judging the Church unto every private Man, as may partly appear by the Censure sect. 4.  that a common ordinary man by Scripture may oppose as great and greater Church, then is the whole Protestant. [Doctor White in his way pag. 59] Which principle being laid, how will they convince people, that God is a pure spirit, whom the Scripture doth so perpetually set forth, as having humane members? I may conclude therefore, that their translating Scriptures into their vulgar languages breeds more danger unto common people than our making of images.  
But they will say; the Translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages is commanded in Scripture, and the Apostolical Church practised it: whereas we cannot prove by Scripture that the Apostles did warrant or practise the setting up of images. This they say with great confidence, but any substantial proof of this their saying, I could never read or hear. The testimonies they bring in this behalf, Search the Scriptures, Let his word dwell plentifully among you etc. are insufficient to prove a direct and express precept or practice of translating Scriptures into the vulgar tongue.  
Catholics on the contrary side (though they boast not of Scriptures, as knowing that nothing is so clearly set down in it, but malapert error may contend against it, with some show of probability) yet have Scriptures much more clear and express then any that Protestant's can bring for themselves, even about the use of the image of Christ crucified in the first Apostolical Church. S. Paul to the Galatians c. 3. v. 1. saith, O ye foolish Galathians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Christ jesus is lively set forth crucified among you. The greek word corresponding to the English (lively set forth) is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to paint forth a thing. In so much as even Beza translates jesus Christus depictus C●ucifixus, jesus Christ painted, or pictured, crucified before your eyes. So that we have in plain and express terms that christ was pictured as Crucified in the Apostolical churches, which the Apostle doth allow, thence drawing an argument to prove the Galathians were senseless and sottish, that keeping in their sight the picture of Christ crucified they would think to be saved by the Law and not by the merits of his Crosse. For it was madness and folly to paint Christ & honour him as crucified, & not to think that by his death upon the Cross he redeemed the world. I know, that some Catholics expound this place that Christ was painted, and pictured out unto the Galathians, metaphorically by preaching. Which I do not deny; but this doth not repugn with the other sense, that he was also materially painted as crucified, nor must we exclude it, this sense being imported by the native and proper signification of the words, and having more connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse, which is to prove the Galathians senseless in their forsaking Christ whom they had pictured, crucified before their eyes. For to forsake Christ crucified, pictured by preaching as the Saviour of the world, though it be impious, yet not senseless, yea rather salvation by the cross of Christ did seem folly unto the Gentiles. But for men to have Christ painted, as crucified before their eyes, honouring him by Christian devotion, in regard of his crucifixion and death, and not to expect salvation by his Cross and death, is sottish and 
(s) The Minister is much vexed with the evidence of this Text, not finding which way to evade, as you may see pag. 280. First he saith lin. 21. If this were true it proves only that Images may be made, but not that they may be adored. Answer. First, the Answerer in this place intends only to prove that the Apostles did allow the making of Crucifixes to represent our Saviour's Crucified person unto Christian devotion. Secondly, this making doth infer worship; for the proper Image of an adored person if it be made, it may be adored; against which principle evident in reason, you cannot bring one word of Scripture. Secondly, you say Ibid. lin. 3. That according to learned Bannes, The worship of Images is neither expressly, nor infoldedly taught in Scripture. Answer. Bamnes meaneth that Image-worship is not formally involved in Scripture, nor matter of faith by virtue of sole Scripture. But he doth not deny but it is virtually contained in Scripture, so that it may Theologically be concluded by texts of Scripture. Thirdly, you cry pag. 282. lin. 24. One Father that expounds this place literally according to your sense. I answer, first no Father nor Catholic denies this literal sense, and Athanasius is brought by Turrianus l. 4. de Dogmat. Charact. thus expounding. Secondly, Protestant's who appeal unto the Scripture, as unto the last judge to give definitive sentence, are bound to take the words of Scripture in the literal sense, except they can clearly demonstrate by Scripture the literal sense to be absurd. Otherwise if without evident proof by Scripture they metaphorize the Scripture, they appeal not unto Scripture, but unto their own fancies. But by Scripture you cannot prove, that the literal painting of our Saviour's Image as crucified is absurd, more than the painting of Luther, and Caluin, and such other of your pretended Prophets is absurd. Therefore you must stand to this literal sense, or else confess that you will not be ruled by the word of God, but depart from the literal sense thereof, when you please, without showing warrant so to do. Finally, the Minister saith, ibid. lin. 27. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth to be written before, not to be painted before. This is his last, yet a desperate shift. First all Lexicons even those of Protestant's say, that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify before, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify to paint, or make figures, & because writing is a kind of painting or making of Characters, hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signify writing. For is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a painter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a pencil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, painting to the quick, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, painting in wax, & innumerable other words aswell single as compound, that testify how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to paint? Secondly, not only Beza, and Erasmus so translate, and the French Genevian, Pourtrayé devant les yeux, Christ jesus pictured before the eyes; but also Caluin in his comment upon this place saith expressly, depictus meo iudicio optimè quadrat, the best translation in my judgenent is depainted, adding, the Apostle doth here signify, that there was amongst the Galathians non nuda doctrina, sed viva & expressa Christi crucifixi Imago, nor the mere preaching, but also lively and express picturing of Christ crucified. Finally, the Minister who here saith that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify is depainted, elsewhere pag. 213. lin. 26. saith the contrary, to wit, that S. Paul doth testify, Galat. 3.1. That by the Gospel Christ jesus IS DEPAINTED before the eyes of the soul. Now, how can this be true, except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signify is depainted, and be thence transferred by metaphor unto preaching?  senseless. And of this material picturing of Christ crucified Athanasius expoundeth this place, whom Turrianus citeth [De Dogmat. charact. l. 4.] Wherefore I may justly say, that we have more clear & express Scripture for the use of images, then have protestāns for their Translations.  
And therefore the danger of ignorant people erring by images, is without reason so much insisted upon by Protestants, their English translations being (as I have showed) a more dangerous block for fools to stumble at, and so fall into damnable errors. If they presume that by diligent instruction they may, and would have us think, that they do preserve their people from that error, why should they not think that the Roman Church, being so potent with her children, can keep them from the foolish error of attributing life and divinity unto dead & dumb images? and that she will so do, being so strictly commanded by the 
(t) Sess. 2. Diligenter doceant Episcopi.  Council of Trent, to use her greatest diligence in this point, that ignorant people fall not into error by any image, which otherwise have many profits and utilities? About which I will not enlarge myself, but only mention some of them. The first is an easy and compendious way of instruction, in which respect they are termed by S. Gregory 
(u) Lib. 7. Ep. 109.  the books of the unlearned: and as another Gregory 
(x) Nissen. ●rat. in Theodorum.  saith, the silent picture speaks on the wall and profiteth very much. The second is to increase in men that keep & honour them, the love of God, and of his Saints; which effect S 
(y) Orat. Quod veteris & novi Testamenti unius sit mediator.  Chrysostome experienced as he testifieth saying, I loved a picture of melted wax full of piety. And S. 
(z) Lib. 7. epist. 53.  Gregory the Great saith, they inflame men that behold them in the love of their Lord and Saviour.  
The third is, to move and incite men to the imitation of the virtues of Christ and his Saints, which utility S. Basill 
(*) Basil. homil. in 40. Martyrs.  doth declare & highly esteem in his Sermon of the forty Martyrs. And examples might be brought of men reclaimed by sight of godly images even in the heat of sinful affection. The fourth is to stay our thoughts upon Christ and his Passion, that our imaginations in prayer may not so easily wander, which use of images catholics in their devotions do often experience. Finally that in his image we may honour Christ, the honour of the image redounding to the Original: And who so crowneth the King's image honoureth the King whose image it is, saith S. 
(a) Ambros. serm. in Psal. 118.  Ambrose. In which kind memorable is the devotion of our Victorious and Religious King 
(b) Polidor. l. 7. Histor. Anglor.  Canutus, who took the diadem that he used to wear on his own head, and therewith crowned an image of Christ crucified, which in his days was devoutly 
(c) Harpesfield Eccles Hist. Saeculo 11. cap. 2.  reserved in the Church of S. Peter & S. Paul in Winchester, & afterwards would never have any crown come on his head, out of humble reverence to his crucified Lord. 
(d) 
The Minister concludes this disputation with saying. pag. 289. lin. 10. Let it be noted that our Adversary hath manifested wondrous weakness. For he hath not throughout his whole disputation produced one plain Text of Scripture or clear sentence of antiquity for Iconolatry. I answer. That Iconolatry signify divine worship of Images which the Answerer did not intent to establish, yea the Minister himself p. 245. lin. 1. saith that Iconolatry or divine worship of Images is impertinent, or heretogenious ●o this disputation. Wherefore the Minister herein showeth wondrous defect of judgement, who thus by his own confession flieth the question. Nor hath he been able to bring one example or text of Scripture, I do not say plain, but with a little show, to prove the question in hand, that the proper images of adored persons that be lawfully made, may not lawfully be adored. On the other side, such images of adored persons if they be made that they must be adored, the honour done, or denied to the Image redounding to the person, the jesuite hath proved by the force of the nature of images, by the Analogy unto images of humane adored persons, by the Prophet David his practice of this principle, by the prime article of Christianity, by testimony of Fathers, and by all kind of Theological proofs. The testimonies of the Fathers more in particular concerning the adoration of Christ his image, & material Cross, as being unto all learned men vulgarly known and notorious, the Answerer did not produce, further than was necessary to prove that Protestants cannot truly assign the time when the bowing unto the image of Christ was brought in among Christians, but by the Apostles. Else what more easy then to have brought testimonies for this point in every age upward from the eight, where the same was defined by the General Council of Nice, as appears by this Catalogue of four in every age, which is one above the highest number of witnesses required to make a matter of fact firm & certain.  
In the seaventh age, the sixth General Council canon. 73. saith, We that are saved by the Cross ought to use all diligence to give it due honour, to wit, Adoration with mind, with speech, with gesture. For which cause we decree, that no Images of the Cross be made on the floor. S. Maximus martyr, lib. cui titulus, ex dogmat. inter Maximum & Theodos. writes, that diverse persons of worth, & amongst them the Bishop of Caesarea, being converted from the Heresy of Monothelisme did with tears of joy and penance go to the Church, where they saluted (that is bowed unto) the holy Images of our Saviour, and of our Lady mother of God, and laying their hands upon them abjured their heresies. S. Sophronius Homil. in laudem Sanctae Crucis: In the midst of Lent (saith he) the Venerable Wood of the vital Cross is adored, seeing our Lord hath appointed this way for us to get pardon of our sins, according to the Tradition of holy Fathers. S. Leontius lib. 5. adversus judaeos: The jews deride us who have in honour and esteem, and do worship the holy Cross, and sacred images, terming us worshippers of wooden Idols.  
In the sixth age, S. Gregory l. 7. Epist. 5. saith: worship and veneration is due to the holy Cross, & image of the Blessed Virgin. Procopius Gazensis in cap. 20. Isaia writes that, the Christian custom was to paint the images of the holy Martyrs on the prores of ships, for defence and protection. Euagrius l. 4. c. 26. relates miracles done through the worship of Images. S. Simeon Stylites Epist. ad justin. Imperat. saith: If according to your sacred Laws they that offer dishonour unto the statues and images of the Emperor be worthy of death, what punishment do they deserve that with barbarous fury have defaced the Image of our Lord, and his blessed Mother?  
In the fift age, S. Cyril. Homil. cont. Nestor. in Concil. Ephesin. saith, the Cross is adored over the whole world. S. Sedulius lib. 4. Paschal. no man is ignorant that the image of the cross is to be adored. S. Chrysostome in Liturgia: Let the Priest as he goeth to the altar bow his head to the image of the Crosse. S. Hierome in Epitaph. Paulae, commends the devotion of S. Paula in that she did lie prostrate before the Cross, & kissed the same with great faith, adoring Christ therein as if she had seen him present on the Crosse. S. Paulinus Epist. 11. writes that the print or image of our Saviour's feet on the mount Oliue●, was miraculously conserved and adored, as also the holy Cross yearly at Easter, the Bishop himself being the principal adorer.  
In the fourth age, Prudentius l. 2. Cont. Simmach: The Roman Emperor lies prostrate in the Church of Christ, and the Governor of the world adores the standard of the Crosse. S. Athanasius q. 15. ad Antiochum, writes, That Christians worshipping the image of the Cross, if Heathens accuse them of adoring the wood, may presently dissolve the Cross, and cast away the wood. Helladius successor of S. Basill, writes of S. Basill, how he did kneel and pray suppliantly before the image of our B▪ Lady against the threats of julian the Emperor. julius Firmicus de error. profan. Religion. c. 22. saith; What do these horns signify but the Venerable figure of the holy cross & c? unto these horns fly with humble veneration.  
In the third age before Constantine, Lactantius lived, through he saw also the beginning of Constantine his reign. This Father in carm. de pass. testifyes that at the entrance of Christian Churches was placed a fair image of Christ crucified; & showing how men ought, & how Christians behaved themselues towards it saith, Flecte genu, lignumque Crucis venerabile adora: Bow knee, adore the Crosses sacred wood. Origen Homil. 6. in Epist. ad Rom. So great is the power of the Cross, that if it be placed before the eyes, and faithfully retained in mind fixed upon the death of Christ, the army of sin & flesh is conquered. S. Gregory called Illuminator, who converted Armenia, did (as Euthim. panop. part. 3. tit. 20. relates) place wooden Images of the Cross upon the shrines of Martyrs, bidding the multitude of people that thither resorted to give worship unto God by the Adoration of the Crosse. S. Procopius Martyr, as doth witness Nicephorus l. 7. c. 15. did adore a golden image of the Cross of Christ crucified, & by it got great victories.  
In the second age, in the beginning whereof some of the Apostles lived, Tertull. in Apol. c. 44. writing against Heathens that objected that Christians were worshippers of the wooden image of the Cross, grants the thing to be true, & defendeth the same. Yea the Protestant Magdeburgians Centur. 5. c. 6. acknowledge that such Crosses of wood were then amongst Christians frequently used & set up in Churches. S. Ignatius epist. ad Philip. doth acknowledge divine power & virtue in the image of the Crosse. It is (saith he) the victorious trophy, or the monument of Christ's victory against the Devil quod ubi viderit, horret. S. Martial. Epist. ad Burdeg. l. 8. exhorts Christians still to have the Cross before them, in ment, in over, in signo, in mind, in mouth, in the image thereof, this being the invincible armour of a Christian against Satan. The Canons of the Apostles have been ever famous in the Christian Church, whereof one is cited in 2. Nicen Synod which saith: Let not the faithful be deceyued by Idols, but paint the divine humane unmingled image of the true God our Saviour jesus Christ & of his servants against Pagans & jews, that so they neither go astray unto Idols, nor be like the jews. Finally, that these images of Christ crucified were used in the Apostles time by their allowance, the jesuite proveth by the text of S. Paul to the Galathians 3.1. so clearly, as you are forced to say, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify to depaint, against all Lexicons, against the principal Protestants that so translate, yea against yourself; and yet you wonder at your adversary's wondrous weakness.      

THE SECOND, AND THIRD POINT.  
2. Prayings, & offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary.  
3. Worshipping, & Invocation of Saints, and Angels.  
I Have joined these two Controversyes together, hoping I might do it with your Majesty's good liking, the main difficulty of them both being the same, to wit, worship and Invocation of Angels and Saints. For I am fully persuaded, that if your Majesty did allow of Invocation of any Saint, you would never deny that devotion unto the B. Virgin mother of God, 
Opera Regia. Respons. ad ep. Card. Peron. p. 402.  whom you honour and reverence above the rest, though perchance you may dislike some particular forms of our prayers, that seem to give her Titles above that which is due to a creature, about which I shall in the end of this discourse endeavour to give your Majesty satisfaction. In which question I will suppose without large and particular proof (being able to prove it, by testimonies undeniable if need be) that Worship & Invocation of Saints hath been generally received in the whole Christian Church, at least ever since the days of Constantine.  
HERE the Minister, either out of ignorance, or rather out of desire to outface the truth writes in this sort, pag. 290. You presuppose that which notwithstanding your outfacing, you will never be able to prove, that Invocation of Saints was universally received as an article of faith, 
This Discourse following, is an addition, wherein is declared that the Ancient Fathers held Invocation of Saints, as a matter of Faith.  ever since the days of Constantine. Thus he. Wherefore aswell because the matter is important, as also to take away this tergiversation, I will here make good the Answerers' word, and demonstrate that all the Fathers some one way, some another have testified to the world, that they held Invocation of Saints as a matter of Christian faith and Religion.  

An eleven Demonstrations, that the Ancient Christian Church did ever hold Invocation of Saints, as a matter of Faith, and Religion. § 1.  
TO accomplish this more clearly, and with less tediousness unto the Reader I shall reduce the Father's saying unto an eleven heads, & which may serve as an eleven different arguments & demonstrations of this truth.  

The first Demonstration.  
If the Fathers held the doctrine that Saints are to be invocated, & that men are aided by their merits, as certain & infallible, than they held it, as a point of faith, or a revealed truth; for on what other ground but the word of God could they pretend to hold it as certain, the same not being evident in the light of nature? But the Fathers teach this doctrine as a matter certain, and infallible, & not to be doubted of by Christians as their words declare. S Augustine: 
(a) Augustine de cur● pro mortuis cap. 16. Illa quaestio vires superat intelligentiae meae, quemadmodum Martyres opitulentur ijs, quos per eos CERTUM est adiwari.  This question is beyond the reach of my knowledge, how martyrs help them, whom it is CERTAIN that they help. And again. 
(*) Idem serm 244. Tunc pro nobis absque ulla dubitatione Sancti Martyres intercedunt.  Then WITHOUT ANY DOUBT the holy Martyrs intercede for us, when they find in us some part of their virtues. S. Ambrose: 
(b) Ambros. ser. 91. Quid non credunt? utrum quòd à martyribus possunt aliqui visitari, hoc est, Christo nou credere: ipse enim dixit, Et maiora his facietis.  Not to believe that Martyrs may visit and relieve men living in this world, is Not to believe in Christ, seeing he said, you shall do yet greater things. Nectarius speaking unto Saint Theodore Martyr: 
(c) Nectar. orat. in primum Sabb. sanctorum jeiuniorum in S. Theodorum, Te post mortem vivere CREDIMUS; ut ergo in Christo vivis & stas prope eum, precibus tuis propitium eum redde famulis tuis.  We believe that thou dost live in God, a life without decay or end. Therefore as thou dost live in Christ, & stands by him, so make him by thy prayers propitious & merciful unto us thy servants. What is this, but to say that as certainly as Saints see God, so certain it is that they pray for us, and hear our prayers? S. Gregory Nazianzen: 
(d) Gregory Nazianzen orat. 26. in patrem suum Apostolium ferè ab initio. NEC DUBITO quin hoc nunc quoque magis faciat postulatione sua, quam priùs doctrinâ.  I do NOT DOUBT, but this blessed Saint in heaven doth now more help us with his prayers, than ever he did on earth by teaching. And again 
(e) Idem. orat. in appulsu Episcop. Egypt. post paginam ferè à principio. Res nostras ut persuasissimun habeo caelitùs inspicit, & virtutis causa laborantibus manum porrigit. : Holy Athanasius now after victory in so many conflicts doth from heaven (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I know it well, or certainly) look down upon our affairs, and reacheth out his hand to them that labour etc. S. Sabinus 
(f) Sabin. Epistol. ad Polib. Scio & Credo &c.  Bishop saith of the holy Father Epiphanius: I KNOW and BELIEVE, that as thou didst obtain of God favours yet living in this world, so likewise that now thou canst do the same and much more. Theodoret: 
(g) Theodoret. in Theophil. cap. 5. Planè scio quòd si Sanctorum memoriam fecero in hominibus etc.  I KNOW CERTAINLY that if I make commemoration of Saints upon earth, they will be mindful of me unto God.   

The second Demonstration.  
If the Fathers commend Invocation of Saints and confidence in their merits as an act of Christian Religion, promising assured comfort to them that do it with faith, they held the same as a matter of Faith, & as grounded on the word of God. For what but God's word can be the ground of assured confidence about divine & supernatural graces? But the Fathers teach this Invocation as a matter to be done in the assurance of faith and Christian piety, wherein their words are most clear. S. Gregory Nazianzen 
(h) Nazianzen orat. in S. Cyprian, non long à fine. Omnia potest Cyprianus, & puluis eius cum fide.  exhorting people to ask all things of S. Cyprian saith: Cyprian and his dust, or sacred Reliks, joined WITH FAITH can do all things. S. Prudentius saith 
(i) Prudent. Hym. in S. Agneten. Protegit puro & fideli pectore supplices.  that, S. Agnes protects, and delivers all that with pure and FAITHFUL hearts are SUPPLIANTS unto her. S. Chrysostome: 
(k) Chrysostom. homil. in Sanct. Iwentium & Maximum Mart. Magna Fide reliquias eorum contingamus, ut inde benedictionem aliquam consequamur etc. quaecunque voluerint apud Regem caelorum impetrare possunt.  Let us often visit the Martyrs, let us adorn their shrines, let us WITH GREAT FAITH touch their Relics, that thence we may receive some benediction, for they impetrate of the heavenly King, by showing their wounds, and in their hands their heads cut off, whatsoever they will. Therefore let us with Great Faith, and alacrity resort unto them. And in another place he thus exhorts: 
(l) Idem. homil. post. reditum ab exilio. Credimus nos iwari illorum meritis.  Let us go to Timothy a new Paul, unto Andrew another Peter, WE BELIEVE that we are helped by their prayers. Let us go to their holy bodies which carried our Saviour's marks. S. Basill: 
(m) Basil. Homil. in 40. Martyrs. Vbiquadraginta, quis dubitet Deum esse praesentem? Qui aliqua premitur angustia, ad Hos confugiat.  Who can doubt but God is present with these forty Martyrs who promiseth to be where two or three are gathered in his name? whosoever is in any distress, let him FLY unto them, and whosoever is in comfort, let him PRAY UNTO THEM, the one, that he may be freed from misery, the other that he may be preserved in prosperity. S. Gaudentius: 
(n) Gaudent. homil. de Apost. & Mart. Tota Sanctorum patrocinijs adiwandi, tota Fide & omni desiderio supplices etc. ut ipsis intercedentibus VNIVERSA quae poscimus adipisci mereamur.  We shall be helped by the Patronage of so many Saints, let us then with FULL FAITH, and all devotion be supplyants' unto them, and run after their steps; That by their intercessions we may obtain ALL we request. S. Maximus: 
(o) Maximus serm. de. SS. Nazario & Celso. Si martyribus regionis externae pia votorum debita redderemus etc. Fides eos Nostros faceret.  If unto Saints whose bodies be remote from us we offer the PIOUS DUTY of VOWS, FAITH will make them ours, and how distant soever their bodies be from us, they will afford us their Patronage we hope for. And again: 
(p) Ibidem. Inuocastiubique Martyrem? ubique te exaudit, ill● qui honoratur in Martyr. Moderante utique eo qui pensat vota tua, & dispensat munera sua in tantùm vicina praesentia efficacis praebitur advocati, in quantùm fuerit Fides Devota succepti.  Dost thou invocate the Martyr EVERY WHERE? He that is honoured in the Martyr doth hear, and will grant thy prayers every where etc. And by how much the FAITH of the Client shall be more DEVOUT, by so much the assistance of the PATRON will be more efficacious & present. Theodoret: 
(q) Theodor. lib. 8. de curand. Graec. affection. Gratia enim quae fectis eorum corporibus pollens vigensue persistit petentibus dona distribuit Fidei supplicantium liberalitatem suam commensa.  The bodies of the Martyrs being divided into parts & dispersed over many Towns and Cities, yet the grace and power remains entire and vigent in every particle, and they distribute gifts unto petitioners, measuring their liberalities according to the FAITH of the SUPPLIANTS. And again: 
(r) Ibid. PIE & FIDELITER precatos.  They who pray unto the Martyrs piously & with FAITH, obtain the things they most desire, as do testify the gifts they being bound by vow offer at their Tombs, manifest tokens of health obtained. S. Gregory the Great: 
(t) Gregor. Dialog l. 2. c. vlt. Vbi sancti Martyres in suis corporibus dubium non est quod multa valeant signa demonstrare, sicut & faciunt, & innumera miracula pura ment quaerentibus ostendunt.  No doubt but Martyrs at their tombs show innumerable miracles to them that seek with pure hart, but because weak Faith may doubt whether they be present, so that they can hear where their bodies are not, therefore oftentimes greater miracles are done where their bodies are not: but 
(u) Mens in Deo fixa tantò maius habet fidei meritum, quantò illic eos & novit non iacere & tamen credit non deesse ab exauditione.  they whose mind is fixed on God have the greater MERIT OF FAITH in that they believe the Saints to be there present to hear men's prayers, where they know they are not present in their bodies.  
Behold how fully, expressly, & constantly, the Fathers affirm Invocation of Saints with confidence in their merits, and that they hear our prayers to be MATTER of Piety & DIVINE FAITH.   

The third Demonstration.  
That devotion which the Father's praise, honour, & admire, as divine and supernatural, & as a testimony that Christ is God that could plant the same in the world, this they hold as a point of Christian Religion, and as an excellent part thereof. But the Fathers so esteem of Invocation & worship of Saints as their words do witness. S. Gregory of Nisse 
(x) 
Nissen. orat. in S. Theodor. Martyrem. Aliorum enim reliquiae vulgò detestabiles sunt, nullusue volens ad eorum tumulum accedit etc.  
His operibus oculos oblectantes cupiunt loculo reliquas corporis partes admovere. Etenim ipso contactu, sanctimoniam credunt & charitatem excitari etc.  
Ipsum corpus perinde ac si viwm florensue esset amplectuntur, & deosculantur, oculis, ore, auribus omnibus denique sensibus adhaerent, lachrimasque pietatis & affectionis indices effundunt etc.   proves this worship to be supernatural and divine, as being beyond the custom of men & instinct of nature. The Relics (saith he) of other dead men be detestable, & men feel horror at their sight, whereas men desire nothing more than to touch the shrine of Martyrs with some part of their bodies, BELIEVING that by the very touch, sanctimony, and charity is engendered. They 
(*) Martyri supplicant qui quando vult, invocatus munera impetrat. Corpora aliorum etc. proiecta iacent; quae verò Martyrij gloriam obtinuerunt, amabilia, iucunda, & omnium studiis certatim complectenda.  CALL ON the Martyr as on God's Ministe, who being INVOCATED by men, is able to impetrate for them what favours he pleaseth. Hence pious people learn how precious in the sight of God is the death of his Saints, that whereas the bodies of other men are horrible, the bodies of them that were adorned with Martyrdom be dear, and amiable, and embraced, and worshipped of all.  
Saint Chrysostome proves Christ to be God, in that he was able to plant Invocation of Saints in men, specially in the Kings and Emperors of the world; 
(y) Chrisostom. homil. 66. ad populum Antioch. Stat sanctis supplicaturus ut pro se intercedant apud Deum. Audebis igitur quaeso horum Dominum mortuum appellare, cuius serui, vel mortui, terrarum orbis Regum sunt protectores? Vide eundem orat. in S. Babilam.  Even he that is clothed with the Imperial purple comes to worship, and embrace these shrines, and laying aside pride & pomp, becomes suppliant unto Saints, that they will intercede for him unto God: So he that weareth the diadem of the Empire, prayeth the Tentmaker & the Fisherman to be his protectors. And darest thou term that Lord a dead man, whose servants though dead are the protectors of the Kings of the whole earth?  
S. Augustine in like manner proveth the Divinity of Christian Religion by the Christian practice of worship and invocation of Saints: 
(z) Augustin. epist. 42. Huius saeculi potestates non à repugnantibus sed à morientibus Christianis victae, contra simulachra impetus suos legesue verterunt, & imperii nobilissimi eminentissimum culmen ad sepulchrum piscatoris submisso Diademate supplicat.  Even the most eminent head of the noblest Empire that ever was, bowing down his Imperial diadem, is suppliant at the shrine of the Fisherman Peter. The same dignity of Christian Religion is noted by Saint Ambrose: 
(1) Ambros. l. 10. in Lucam c. 21. Regibus martyres caelestis gratiae honore succedunt, & illi fiunt Supplices, high Patroni.  The Martyrs by the honour of heavenly grace are instead of Kings, yea Kings be suppliants unto Martyrs, as unto their Patrons. Theodoret spends one whole book of his eight against Grecians, or Heathens, in this argument, showing the glory of Martyrs, in that people of all nations, in all occasions, invocate them, and they bestow favours on their suppliants, concluding 
(2) Theodoret. lib. 8. adversus Graecoes. Haec quae sit Sanctorum Martyrum virtus ostendunt. Martyrum verò virtus, quem coluerunt verum Deum esse declarat.  thus: These things show how great is the power of Martyrs, & the power of Martyrs proves Christ whom they worshipped to be God.   

The fourth Demonstration.  
That piety & devotion which the most holy Fathers taught as an assured means of Remission of sins, of appeasing God's anger & of salvation, was by them held as a matter belonging to Christian Religion and faith. The holy Fathers taught worship and Invocation of Saints with confidence in their merits, as a means of appeasing God's Anger, of Remission of sin, and of salvation. This appeareth by their words. Origen saith: 
(a) Origen. homil. 27. in Matth. Intercedunt & provocant Christum, ne deserat genus humanum propter peccata eorum.  the Saints before the throne of Christ intercede, & stir him up not to forsake mankind for their sins. S. Cornelius Pope: 
(b) Cornel. Epist. 1. Intercedentibus Sanctis Apostolis purget maculas peccatorum.  Pray unto our Lord jesus that the holy Apostles interceding, he will PURGE the STAINS of our sins. S. Cyprian: 
(c) Cyprian. de stella & magis. Veniam obtinentes immeritis.  they being judges & Senators of the heavenly Court, obtain Pardon for many that are unworthy. S. Gregory Nissen: 
(d) Nissen. orat. in S. Theodor. Preces justorum crimina diluunt.  The prayers of many martyrs wash out the CRIMES of Nations and countries. S. Ambrose: 
(e) Ambros. lib. 5. de vid. Pro peccatis intercedere possunt.  They can intercede for our SINS, who wash await their own with their blood. Prudentius: 
(f) Prudent. Hymn. de S. Laurent. Indignus quem Christus audiat, sed per patronos Martyres potest salutem consequi.  he that is unworthy, may, having Martyrs to be his Advocats and Patrons, obtain salvation. Nectarius 
(g) Nectar. orat. in S. Theodor. Placatum famulis tuis.  Oh thou that stands by the throne of Christ, appease his Anger, and make him mild and gentle unto his servants. S Hierome: 
(h) Hierom. epist. 25. de obitu Blesill. Veniam impetrat peccatorum.  holy Blesilla prayeth for me, and as I am sure obtaineth for me remission of my sins. S. 
(i) Sever. Sulpit. Epist. ad Aurel. Peccati moles negat ad astra conscensum, saeva miserabilem ducit ad tartara; spes tamen superest illa, sola illa postrema, ut quod per nos etc. orante Martino mereamur.  Severus Sulpit. An heavy load of sin weigheth me downward even to the very pit of hell, yet this hope remaineth, this my only last hope, that what we are not able to obtain by ourselves, we may merit to obtain by the prayers of holy Martin. S. Paulinus: 
(k) Paulin. de S. Faelic. Nat. 8. Exorare Deum pro peccatoribus aegris, vique boni meriti meritum superare sinistrum.  It is the custom of Saints to pray for distressed sinners, by the force of their good merit, overcoming the strength of evil merit. S. Chrysostome: 
(l) Chrysostom. homil. 41. in Gen. Author salutis his qui suà se perdiderunt desidiâ.  God often for the merits of Saints deceased, hath mercy of the living that otherwise are unworthy. David deceased many years before was the Author of SALVATION unto them that had lost themselues by their sloth 
(*) Homil. 2. in Psal. 50. David mortuus est, sed merita eius vigent. homo mortuus vivo Patrocinatur. . David is dead, but his merits live, the dead man is the patron of the living; 
(m) Serm. de virtute & vitio. Ad mortuos confugiens propter eos peccata remittit.  for their sake that are dead, God forgiveth sin. S. Ephrem: 
(n) Ephem. serm. de Lau. SS. Martyrum. Vt vestris precibus saluari merear.  Assist me, o holy Martyrs, before the throne of the divine Majesty, that by your PRAYERS, I may be SAVED. S. Augustine: 
(o) August. lib. qq. in Exod. q. 108. Significantur Martyres sancti quorum orationibus propitiatur Deus peccatis populi sui.  By the red skins of the wheathers wherewith God would have the v●yles of the Tabernacle covered, we presently understand our Saviour made red and purpled with his blood in his passion. But they likewise signify the holy Martyrs, by whose prayers God is propitiated and appeased for the sins of his people. S. Maximus saith: 
(p) Maximus serm. de martyr. Tauric. Euadimus inferni tenebras propriis eorum meritis, attamen consocii sanctitate.  By devotion unto Saints we avoid the pains of hell, by their very merits, being their fellows in sanctity. S. Euthymius: 
(q) S. Euthym Monach●● in encomio ad beatam Virginem Mariam. Dum hic manemus nos protegas supplicamus, & ut nobis parcat filius tuus & Deus perennibus tuis precibus.  O unspoted virgin mother, thy Son and God pardon us our sins, by the incessancy of thy praying for us. And could the holy Fathers think worship and invocation of Saints, with confidence in their merits, not to be a matter of faith which they so constantly teach and commend to be a means of salvation and remission of sin?   

The fifth Demonstration.  
That which the Fathers did practise in their greatest needs, and in the chief acts of Religion, when the use of true Christian devotion was most necessary, that they hold as assured and certain devotion, & exercise of divine faith, and Christian piety: Such is the worship and Invocation of Saints, with confidence in their merits, unto which the Saints of God did fly in their greatest distresses. S. justina Virgin and Martyr, being strongly assaulted with fleshly temptations caused by magic incantation, fled (as S. Nazianzen writeth) 
(r) Nazian. orat. in S. Cyprian. Mariam Virginem rogavit, ut periclitanti Virgini opem ferret.  unto the protection of the B. Virgin, entreating her to assist a Virgin that was in that danger, whereby she got the victory. S. Nazianzen himself being in the like affliction, with great humility, openly in the Church prayeth unto S. Basil: 
(s) Idem orat. in S. Basil. O Sacrum & Divinum caput! carnis stimulum etc. tuis siste precibus etc.  O dear Saint, look down on us from heaven, and either stay with thy prayers this sting of the flesh given me of God for my instruction, or else encourage me manfully to resist it. Theodosius 
(t) Ruffin. l. 2. Histor. c. 33.  Emperor being to go in expedition against Eugenius the Pagan Tyrant, made together with the Bishops, Clergy, and people solemn litanies & processions unto the Tombs of the Apostles and Martyrs, where prostrate on the ground before their shrines, auxilia sibi fida intercessione Sanctorum poscebat; craved assured assistance by the intercession of Saints. General Counsels being to decide controversies about the highest mysteries of Religion, 
(*) Concil. Chalcedon. can. 11.  the whole council prayed unto Saints, as that most holy Council of Chalcedon: Holy Flavian liveth with God, the Blessed Martyr pray for us. As also did S. Augustine, 
(u) Augustine lib. 5. the Baptism. contr. Donatist. cap. 2. Adiunet nos Cyprianus orationibus suis.  entering into the discussion of a most difficile controversy, prefixeth this Devotion: Holy Cyprian help us with his prayers. In the very act of Martyrdom, when they were presently to go out of this world, they did Invocate Saints, as did Saint Acyndimus. Finally the whole Christian Church at the sacrifice of the Mass still hath used the same, as appeareth by all ancient 
(*) The Roman, that of jerusalem, the Aethiopian, Anaphora Syriaca, that of Milan, S. Basill, S. Chrysostome.  Liturgies that are extant: for though the Priest in the act of sacrifice do not invocate Saints by direct and formal prayer, as saith S. Augustine, 
(x) August. l. 8. De civet. c. 27. Quis audivit stantem sacerdotem ad altar etc. dicere in precibus, Offero tibi sacrificium Petre?  Who ever heard the Priest being at the Altar to say, I offer sacrifice to thee Peter, or to thee Paul? yet the same 
(z) Idem tract. 8. in joan. Sic eos commemoramus ut magis orent ipsi pro nobis, ut eorum vestigiis inhaereamus. & serm. 27. de verbis Apostol.  S. Augustine doth witness, that at the holy table commemoration is made of Martyrs, that they will pray for us that we may follow their steps. And S. Cyrill of jerusalem before S. Augustine: 
(a) Cyrill Hierosol Cathec. 5. Cùm hoc sacrificium offerimus, memoriam facimus etc. primùm Patriarcharun, Prophetarum, Martyrum, ut Deus orationibus illorum & deprecationibus suscipiat preces nostras.  When we offer sacrifice we make commemoration of Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs etc. that God by their prayers and supplications will admit of our petitions. Wherefore seeing the most holy and ancient Fathers in their own most grievous distress, in the greatest necessities of the Church, in businesses of highest universal importance, in the time of the most dread Christian sacrifice did use prayers and Invocation of Saints with assured confidence in their merits, who can doubt but they held the same as a point of Christian Religion, whereof they were assured by faith & Gods express word, delivered by Tradition?   

The sixth Demonstration.  
What the Fathers held as a Christian custom and doctrine, confirmed by most certain and evident miracles, that they held as a divine and supernatural truth. The Fathers held worship and Invocation of Saints, with confidence in their merits as a Christian devotion, confirmed by most manifest and certain miracles, as 
(b) August. lib. 22. de civitat. c. 9 etc. 10.  S. Augustine saith: Miracles are done by the intercession and impetration, if not also by the immediate operation of Saints. And again: Martyrs do Miracles, or rather God for the prayers & intercessions of Martyrs. In confirmation whereof the testimonies of S. Basill, Nazianzen, Nissen, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Hierome, Augustine, Prudentius, Paulinus, Gregory the Great, Gregory Turonensis, and others might be plentifully alleged.   

The seaventh Demonstration.  
What the Fathers taught as a necessary supernatural duty of Christian humility, they taught as a matter of faith. The Fathers taught praying unto Saints as a necessary supernatural duty of Christian humility. For though Invocation of Saints be not so simply necessary but a man may in some cases be saved without the exercise thereof, yet because they that pray unto God, feel by his holy inspiration their own unworthiness, he moveth them to aid themselves, by the comprecations of blessed Saints, as it were saying unto them what he said to the friends of job: Go to my beloved servants, that they may intercede for you. Hence men do not ordinarily obtain what they desire of God without this humility of craving the Intercessions of Saints. To this purpose S. Greg. Nissen 
(c) Orat. in S. Theodor. Quod si maiore opus sit auxilio, Martyrum adhibe chorum, & unà cum omnibus supplica.  saith, that sometimes, Maiore opus est intercessione; there is ●●ed of greater intercession, and to invocate or advocate the whole choir & company of Saints. To this purpose S. Augustine writes that 
(d) August. serm. 17. de verbis Apostoli. Iniuria est pro martyre orare, cuius nos Debemus orationibus commendare.  Debemus etc. we must recommend ourselves unto the prayers of Martyrs: yea that we are taught by the holy Scripture, that 
(e) Idem. q. 149. in Exodum. Relevari apud Deum meritis nos posse eorum quos diligit.  when we feel that our bad merits weigh us down that we be not beloved of God, we may be relieved by the merits of them that are gracious in his sight. This humility of flying to the merits of deceased Saints, S. Chrysostome showeth to be taught us in the holy Scripture by the example of the three children praying in the furnace: 
(f) Chrysost. homil. 84. in Matth. Quoniam semetipsos ad impetrandam populo veniam, sufficere non credunt, AD PATRVM MERITA confugiunt.  For (saith he) because they did believe themselves not to be sufficient to obtain pardon for the people, they fly to the MERITS of their Fathers, confessing themselves to bring nothing with them worthy of regard, besides an humbled and contrite hart, saying, for Abraham thy beloved, for Isaac thy servant, & for Israel thy holy one [Dan. 3.35. Finally S. Ambrose; 
(g) Amb. l de vid. Magno peccato obnoxia minus idonea est quae pro se precetur, certè quae pro se impetret. Adhibeat igitur ad medicum alios precatores etc. Obsecrandi sunt Angeli pro nobis qui nobis ad praesidium datisunt: Martyrs obsecrandi etc. isti sunt Dei Martyrs, nostri praesules, speculatores vitae actuunque nostrorum.  The soul (saith he) that is guilty of great sin, is less fit to request, or at least to obtain the remission thereof for herself: Therefore let her use the intercession of others unto her heavenly Physician. The Angels are to be beseeched that are given us of God for our guard. The martyrs are to be beseeched in whose patronage we may seem to claim interest by the pledge of their bodies. They may intercede for our sins who washed out their own with their blood. These be the Martyrs of God, our Governors, the overseers of our life and actions.   

The eight Demonstration.  
That doctrine and devotion which is delivered by full Tradition from the Apostles as practised in all ages since them, as an exercise of Christian piety, is a part of Christian faith and Religion. But such is the worship and Invocation of Saints. For not only in the third age there be not obscure but manifest steps of this practice, as the Centurists 
(h) Magdeburg. Centur. 3. c. 4. colum. 83. Videas in Doctorum huius saeculi scriptis non obscura vestigia Inuocationis sanctorum.  acknowledge, but also in the second which was immediate upon the death of the Apostles. First, Saint Aurelian disciple and successor of S. Martial 
(i) In vita S. Martialis. Adsit nobis qui in orbe extitit pius Pastor, ut eius orationibus muniti, mereamur aeternae haereditatis participes fieri etc.  in his life prayeth unto him. Saint Dionysius 
(k) Dionysius Eccles. Hierarch▪ c. 3. Impositis altari venerabilibus signis, adest protinus sanctorum Catalogus etc.  saith: When the sacred & venerable signs in which Christ is signified and taken, be laid on the Altar, presently there follows the Catalogue or commemoration, of Saints. And again, 
(l) Idem Ecclesiastic. Hierarch c. 7. Superflua spe ille suspensus est, qui sanctorum flagitat preces, & naturae ipsorum consentaneas sacras operationes abigit.  he feeds upon vain hopes that craveth the prayers of Saints, & doth not actions that agree with the nature of Saints. S. Ireneus: 
(m) Iren. cont. haeres. l. 5. c vlt. Virgins' Euae virgo Maria fieret advocata.  The Virgin Mary is made advocate of Eve: which words the Centurists censure as hard and incongruous. 
(n) Magdeburgens. Centur. 3. c. 6.   
Secondly, the use of Procession was frequent in the second age presently upon the Apostles death, as doth witness Tertullian 
(o) Tertullianus lib. 2. ad uxorem c. 4. Si Procedendum erit, nunquam magis familiae occupatio tenebit. ; but procession was joined with prayer unto Saints, and visitation of their Relics, as appears by Eusebius who describing this practice saith 
(p) Euseb. lib. 13. de praeparat. Euang. c. 7. Monumenta eorum accedimus, votaue ipsis facimus tanquam viris sanctis, quorum intercessione ad Deum non parùm iu●ari profitemur. : we visit the monuments of Martyrs, & offer vows and prayers unto them, professing that we are not a little aided with God by their Intercession. The same is also testified by S Chrysostome 
(q) Chrysost. homil. in SS. Inuentium & Maximum. Saepe eos nuisamus, tumulos adornemus. , and S. Jerome plainly signify it, who exhorting a consecrated Virgin not to leave her retirement upon occasion of Processions, saith: 
(r) Hierom. 22. Epist. ad Eustoch. de custodia virginit. c. 6.  Martyrs tibi quaerantur in cubiculo, numquam deerit occasio procedendi, si quoties fuerit necesse processura sis: Visit the Martyrs (by devout imagination) within thy chamber, thou wilt never want occasion to go in procession, if thou go as often as this will be needful and requisite, in respect of visiting the Relics and tombs of Martyrs.  
Finally, in this primitive age the custom was frequent to pray at the Shrines of Saints, and keeping their Aniversary festival days, as appears by the Epistle of the Church of Smirna 
(s) Epist. Smirn. apud Euseb. lib. 4. Histor. c. 15. Ambusta ossa (S. Policarpi) pretiosissimis gemmis chariora etc. collegimus, & sicu● conveniebat ex more condidimus. Quo in loco solennes agimus celebresue conventus, maximè in die passionis eius. , and by Tertullian: 
(t) Tertull. de corona militis. c. 2. Pro Natalitijs annua die facimus.  Now it is evident that this praying at Saints Tombs, & the keeping of their feasts, was to the end that Christians should crave their intercessions, as doth witness S. 
(u) August. lib. 20. contr. Faust. c. 22. Populus Christianus memorias Martyrum religiosa solemnitate concelebrat, & ad excitandam imitationem, & ut eorum meritis atque orationibus adiwetur.  Augustine & others. In which kind notable is the testimony of Origen 
(x) Origen homil. 3. in diversos. Bene ergo, & secundum Dei voluntatem eorum memoriam celebrari Sancti Patres mandarunt etc. vel pro ipsis parentibus, ut qui nimio dolore percutiebantur, ijs intercessio filiorum apud Deum prodesset. , who saith that amongst the reasons, why the Holy FATHERS commanded according to the will of God that the memory of the Innocents' should be kept festival in the Church, one was pro ipsis parentibus, in regard of their parents, that seeing their parents were grieved excessively at their death, the intercession of their children might be available with God for them. Thus Origen, by whose testimony two things are evident. First, that the Apostles were the holy Fathers that did command the feast of the Innocents' to be kept, and this whiles some parents of the said Innocents' were yet alive. Secondly, that the Apostles taught prayer and Invocation of Saints, and did institute festival days, that men might crave their intercessions.   

The ninth Demonstration.  
The Ancients taught Invocation of Saints so fully and clearly, as Protestants are forced to confess that it was the certain and full belief of the gravest Fathers. Chemnitius 
(y) Chemnit. Examen Concilij Tridentini part. 3. pag. 200.  writes in this sort▪ Most of the Fathers, as Nazianzen, Nissen, Basill, Theodoret, Ambrose, Hierome, Augustine, did not DISPUTE, but AVOUCH the souls of Martyrs and Saints to hear the petitions of those that prayed unto them: they went often to the monuments of Martyrs, and Invocated martyrs by name. Thus he. And Doctor Whitegift Archbishop of Canterbury, Defence pag. 473. All the Fathers of the Greek Church, & of the Latin also for the most part were spotted with Invocation of Saints. Fulke rejoinder to Bristol pag. 36. I Confess Ambrose, Hierome, Augustine, held Invocation of Saints. The Magdeburgians Centur. 3. c. 4. Coll. 83. acknowledge, that in the Father's next unto the Apostolical times were found, Non obscura vestigia invocationis Sanctorum; manifest marks of Invocations of Saints.   

The tenth Demonstration.  
That which the Fathers held so constantly as they condemned the deniers thereof as Heretics, they held as matter of faith. The Fathers held worship and invocation of Saints in this manner, condemning the contradictours thereof, as Novellists, & Heretics, to wit, Aerius, & Vigilantius, as is confessed 
(z) Saravia in defence. de diversis pag. 349. and Beza against whom he writes ibid. Fulke in his Answer to a counterfeit p. 46. . This Argument as also the Nynth were brought by the Answerer, & unto it the Minister saith, pag. 262. Our adversary showeth himself a weak antiquary when he affirms that Aerius and Vigilantius were condemned of heresy, because they denied Invocation of Saints deceased. I Answer. The Minister here showeth himself both a weak antiquary & a weak respondent. A weak respondent, because his adversary did not only say, but also proved by the confession of Protestants, that Aerius and Vigilantius were condemned for denying Invocation of Saints. For Saravia, and Beza are cited as saying of Aerius, that he was condemned for affirming, that SAINTS DEPARTED are not to be PRAYED unto. Fulke, and the Centurists are cited affirming the same of Vigilantius, as also doth 
(*) Centur. 4. l. 4. pag. 506.  Osiander. Now unto this Argument the Minister hath not replied a word.  
Secondly, he showeth himself a weak Antiquary in denying that Vigilantius was condemned of heresy for his opposing & deriding Invocation of Saints. For S Hierome writing against Vigilantius, relates his scoffing at Invocation of Saints, & his saying, Ergo Cineres suos circumuolitant, ne fortè si precator accedat, absentes audire non possint. For which saying S. Jerome exclaims presently against him: O portentum in ultimas terras deportandum! Aerius also is condemned by the Fathers, as an Heretic for his denying commemoration of Saints in the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist as it was then used by the Church, as doth witness Epiphanius 
(1) Epiphan. haeres. 77. . But that commemoration of Saints deceased and glorious in heaven, was joined with recommending our prayers unto God by their Intercessions and Supplications, as doth testify S. Cyrill, 
(2) Cyrill. Cathec. 5.  who lived at that tyme.   

The eleventh Demonstration.  
What the Fathers taught with full consent and constantly without doubting or gain saying one another, that they held not as a probable and disputable point, but as matter of faith. The Fathers in this con●enting manner, taught worship and Invocation of Saints. Howsoever Protestant's not able to deny this to have been their doctrine, seek to discredit them, as if they had been various, uncertain, contradictious in this point.  
But seeing Christian antiquity that hath perused their works now more than 1300. years, never noted such contradictions in ●hem, Christian piety and charity will ne●er be so persuaded of the Fathers by Protestants, specially their allegations being ●●ch as may easily be explicated, so as they make nothing at all against this Catholic custom.  
For all they say in this kind is reduced to one of these heads. First that Angels are not to be honoured as 
(a) The Minister here saith: Some Fathers prove Christ to be God & others that the Holy Ghost is God, because he hears the prayers of them, that Invocate him every where. Answer. This is false; they prove Christ and the Holy Ghost to be God because they are every where by nature. See S. Basil. de sp. Sancto. c. 22. whom the Minister falsifyeth egregiously.  Gods, nor by sacrifices in the heathenish manner. Orig. lib. 5. cont. Celsum. & lib. 8. circa finem. Epiphan. haeres. Sat in honore Maria, Deus adoretur. Theodoret. in c. 2. ad Coloss. & Concil. Laodicenum c. 35.  
Secondly, that Saints are not to be invocated by Faith, as 
(b) In this manner is understood the testimony of S. Athanaes'. orat. 2. contra Arianos. cited by the Minister. pag. 295. add lit. B. Sanctos non à Creato postulare ut auxiliator sit. S. Athanasius speaks of this prayer of David, Fias mihi in Deum adiutorem, be thou made unto me an hilding God, he saith, that Saints in this manner do not ask help of Creatures, to wit, as of their helping Gods and as Authors of benefits, otherwise S. Athanasius could not but know that the Scripture is full of examples wherein holy persons did ask the help of creature, as the Sanamite of Elizaeus, & the woman of Sarepta of Elias, & many the like▪  authors of the benefits we crave. Rom. 10.14. Ambros. de obit. Theodos. Nor as the sanctifier of our soul dwelling in the same by grace. Hierom. in Proverb. c. 2. Nullum invocare, id●● intus orando vocare, nisi Deum debemus.  
Thirdly, that the Priest doth not invocate Saints by direct prayer in the Lyturgy of the Mass, which being a sacrifice the devotion thereof is to be directed to God only. Augustine lib. 22. the civet. c. 10. Carthag. 4. c. 23.  
Fourthly, that our friends that are deceased do not now hear us in the familiar manner they were wont conversing with us. Hierom. ad Heliodor. de obitu Nepotiam whatsoever I writ seemeth to be dead & 〈◊〉 because Nepotian doth not hear it, to wit, i● visible manner, delighting therein and applauding the same as he was accustomed to do in his life-time. 
(c) Hence appeareth the impertinency of the Minister that so often urgeth this place of S. Hierome pag. 29.2. lin. 22. Orthodox. pa. 54. li. 6.   
Fiftly, that they do not know what is done in this world by their natural forces. Augustine de cura pro mortuis c. 16. Per divinam potentiam Martyres vivorum rebus intersunt, quoniam defuncti, per naturam propriam, vivorum rebus interesse non possunt.  
Sixthly, speaking unto some deceased persons, they make an If, whether they hear them or not, because they speak unto such as they knew not certainly to be Saints. Nazianzen orat. 3. in julian. 
(d) The Minister here saith, Did not the Fathers reckon Constantine to be in joy and glory? and yet Gregory Nazianzen using an Apostrophe to him, saith. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hear, o thou Spirit of Great Constantine, if thou hast any notion of these things. I Answer, you falsify the text of Nazianzen, both in the Greek & in your English translation. For his words are, Hear o thou Spirit of Great Constantius, if thou have any notion of these things. Yea that we might see you corrupt the text wilfully & against your conscience, even in this very Reply, & in this point ●f controversy you cite the same pag. 359. lit. a. in this manner. Audi etiam 〈◊〉 Constantij magni anima, siquis mortuus sensus est. Hear o thou Spirit of ●reat Constantius etc. Now, Constantius was an Arian, and a persecutor of Catholics unto his dying day, though on his death bed (it was said) ●e made some kind of repentance. Hence S. Gregory Nazianzen might doubt ●f his being in Glory, and say, Hear if thou have any notion of these ●●inges. The same Father in his funeral Oration for his sister Gorgonia, where he saith: Sister admit of this oration in lieu of many funeral offerings, If this reward be given to holy souls to feel these things; he doth not doubt of her hearing his prayers, but only whether she received an humane natural content, in that his affectuous Panigyricall made in her praise.   
THIS truth supposed, I cannot but conceive that your Majesty professing so much love to the first primitive ages, may deceive satisfaction about this point; the causes of Protestants dislikes being weak, and not to be opposed against the strength of so long continued authority, as I shall endeavour to demonstrate in their eight usual Exceptions.    

Invocation of Saints not to be disliked, because not expressed in Scripture. §. 2.  
AND first I must satisfy the transcendentall cause of their dislike, 
(a) Confess. August. art. 12. Fulke against Rhem.  which is, that worship and Invocation of Saints deceased, is no where expressly set down in Scripture, without express warrant whereof nothing may lawfully be done that belongs to Religion. But this though carrying a show of devotion in the conceit of common people, is altogether unworthy of the erudition of any learned Protestant. For howsoever in the beginning of their separation, they did 
(b) Luther. l de seruo arb. & serm. de Cruse, sive expresso Dei mandato.  cry for express Scripture, express Commands o● the Written Word; yet now they are 〈◊〉 gone 
(c) Wotton in his Trial pag. 89.  from that principle, as they are exceeding angry 
(d) john White in his defence pag. 228.  with us, that w● should think that any of theirs were 〈◊〉 any time broachers of such an absurdity Wherefore in their written books (wh●● they teach in Pulpits I know not) they 
(e) D. Field of the Church. l. 4. c. 20. Whitaker de sacra. Scrip. cont. 1. q. 6.  disclaim from express Scripture, and think it a sufficient warrant of a Christ●●● custom that the same be 
(f) Note that it is one thing to be expressed in Scripture, and another to be grounded on Scripture. All Christian doctrine is not expressed in Scripture, yet every Christian doctrine is so grounded on Scripture, that it may in some sort or other be proved from Scripture.  grounded ●● Scripture, that is, may be deduced by good discourse from truths revealed therein, 〈◊〉 be proved consonant to the rules & principles thereof, according to which ample extent of Scriptures unto things deducible from them, or consonant unto them, there is no Catholic custom that hath not warrant in God's word, as we are able to show. This only we require, that ignorant people be not judges of such inferences; an office so fare above their capacity, as I am persuaded no unlearned man that hath in him any spark of humility, or any mediocrity of judgement, will undertake it. For no man is competent to judge assuredly of arguments by deduction from Scripture, that hath not exact skill of Scripture to know the false sense from the true, as of Logic, to distinguish Syllogisms from Paralogismes, being able to give sentence of the truth of principles by the one, and of the inferences by the other; A thing so hard as even learned Divines do much suspect their own sufficiency to judge of deductions, & dare not absolutely pronounce their sentence, but refer the same to definitions of authority, which besides skill of Scripture & Logic hath the promise of God's perpetual assistance in teaching the Christian Church. Wherefore if Protestants will bind us to bring express Scripture for the worship of Imags, Adoration of the Sacrament, Invocation of Saintes, they must themselves likewise be bound to bring express Scripture against Anabaptists for 
(g) D. Field l. 4. of the Church c. 20. saith. It is no where expressly delivered in Scripture.  christening of Infants, and for the keeping of the Sunday in lieu of the ancient Sabboath Day, for their dedicating of 
(h) Concerning the Protestants keeping festival days of Saints with religious solemnity, the Minister saith not a word, which is tacitly to grant that this duty of Religion is used piously by the English Church although the same want the warrant of Scripture; why then may not Catholics pray unto Saintes, though there were no warrant in Scripture for such practice?  Days in memory of the Apostles with religious solemnity, for the 
(i) Concerning the Cross in baptism, the Minister saith pag. 302. that it is a thing Adiaphorous, & therefore express scripture is needles to warrant it. But I ask him, whether it be Adiaphorous to think and to say, that the use of the Cross in baptism is superstitious, impious, Antichristian? if it be Adiaphorous so to think and to say, why condemn they the Puritans in this respect? if it be wicked and impious so to think and speak, then is it impious and unchristian to reject devotious and religious offices practised in the Sacraments, upon pretence that they be not prescribed by Scriptures. And then further it is consequent, that Protestants who condemn Invocation of saints as impious, superstitious, antichristian, cannot excuse themselves from impiety, though the same were not in Scripture; how much more being not only perpetual Tradition unwritten, but also conforme unto Scripture, and proved by principles set down therein, as will appear.  cross in Baptism, and other such things observed in their religion, not expressed in Scripture. And if deduction from Scripture, or consonancy therewith be sufficient to warrant these customs, why should they mislike the Worship, and Invocation of Saints, for which (besides the judgements of the most flourishing and learned Antiquity that ever was since the Apostles days, to wit the Fathers of the fourth Age confessedly consenting with us) we bring more clear warrant from Scripture, than they can bring for the before mentioned observation of them religiously kept?   

Knowledge of prayers made to them communicable, & communicated unto Saints. §. 3.  
THE second cause why Protestants dislike praying to Saints, is, for that they think by teaching, that Saints hear our petitions, we attribute unto them knowledge proper to God only. For Saints cannot know all prayers made to them without seeing at once what is done in every part of the world, nor know the sincere devotion wherewith they are done, without seeing the secret affection of men's hearts. But to know what is done in all parts of the world, & the secrets of hearts, is knowledge proper to God.  
To this exception answer is made, that knowledge proper to God is of two kinds, the one so proper as it is altogether incommunicable with any creature, and such is the comprehension of his divine Essence. The second is proper so, that naturally creatures are not capable thereof, yet the same may be imparted unto them by a supernatural light, elevating them to a high & divine state above the possibility of nature. In this kind is the vision of the divine essence face to face, which being by nature proper unto God only, is by grace granted unto Saints. And if this vision be communicated unto Saints, the sight of the inferior world, and of the secrets of hart, is without cause reputed incommunicable with them, according to the saying of S. Prosper: 
(k) De vita Contempl. l. 5. c. 4. Non latebit beatos aliquid secretorun, quod est longè praestantius puris cordibus visuri sunt Deum.  Nothing is so secret as the knowledge thereof may be denied unto the perfectly blessed, their seeing God with pure understanding being without comparison a thing more excellent.  
Thus S. Prosper, whose argument doth convince that Saints may know both what is done in the world & the secrets of hearts. First, as concerning the world, to see the whole world and all in it, is not higher knowledge, nor requires a more perfect understanding, then to see face to face the di●●ne Essence, immense and incomprehensible, before whom the world is no more ●●en 
(l) Sap. 12. ●. 2●. 3.  momentum staterae, & gutta roris antelucani. But the Saints of God (according to Christian faith) have an elevated understanding, able to behold 
(m) 1. Cor. 13.12.  clearly and distinctly the divine Essence, with the infinite 
(n) joan. 3.2.  beauties and perfections thereof. How then can a Christian conceive so meanly of them as to doubt whether they have sufficient 
(o) These arguments are brought not to prove that the Saints have this knowledge, but only that this knowledge is not so proper of God, but creatures may by grace be participant thereof. Wherefore the Minister seeing the jesuite to demonstrate his purpose against Protestants, to wit, the knowledge of things done in all parts of the world, and of secrets of hart to be communicable unto B. Creatures, and this so clearly as he had not what to reply, he perverteth all these arguments, affirming pag. 305. l. 1. That the jesuite argueth in this sort: Saints see the face of God. Ergo, They behold the secrets of hearts. and lin. 17. That his argument is, They which know or see the greater, understand and behold the less. But the Saints behold the Essence of God which is greater. Ergo. These be the Ministers fictions, not the jesuits arguments. For to prove that the blessed may see secrets of hart, and all things done in the world, the jesuite argueth in this manner unanswerably. They that have sufficient understanding for greater and more excellent knowledge, have sufficient understanding for lesser knowledge; and if greater knowledge be not above the elevated capacity of a creature, than lesser is not. But Saints have sufficient understanding for the clear vision of God, and so this knowledge, the greatest of all others, is not perfection above that of which creatures are capable by grace. Therefore, knowledge of all things done in all parts of the world, and of secrets of hart, which is less high, excellent, and difficile than the vision of God, is communicable by grace unto creatures: and consequently the Protestants vulgar Argument, that Catholics make Saints equal unto God, by teaching that they see men's hearts, and all things done in the world, is frivolous.  understanding to behold things done in this inferior world, as far as they belong to their state? Secondly as for the secrets of hearts, God is without comparison more spiritual, more secret, more invisible, and out of the sight of natural understanding than is any the most secret thought of man, or Angel; and yet the Saints have so clear penetrating, & all discovering light, as they do most perspicuously discern the divine, hidden, & unsearchable Essence. What reason is there then why Christians should think the secrets of men's hearts invisible and unsearchable unto them? If we look into Scripture, as the heart 
(p) Hierem. 17.9.  of man is said to be unsearchable but to God only, so God likewise is said to be 
(q) Coloss. 1.15.3. 1. Timoth. 1.17.  invisible, but only to himself; so that to Saints, together with the sight of hearts, we must deny the sight of God, or else interpret the sayings of Scripture, that man's hart, and God are invisible, to wit, by mere natural light, and that both are visible unto Saints, by that light whereof the Prophet said; 
(r) Psal. 35.10.  In thy light we shall see the light. If there were a 
(s) This doctrine of the Glass, or Mirror, is brought to show the possibility how things may be seen in God, not to prove that of necessity they are seen: and so the Minister might have spared the paper in citing the opinions of Schoolmen concerning the doctrine of the Voluntary glass.  glass of diamant so clear and excellent that whatsoever is done in London in secretest corners should therein particularly and distinctly appear, surely he that hath eyes to see that glass, may likewise discern what is done over the City. Now, most certain it is, that in God all creatures, all actions done in the world, and all the most secret thoughts of hearts, so perspicuously and distinctly shine as they are in themselves. So that the Saints having light to see the divine Essence, may in him clearly discern whatsoever is done in the world belonging to their state though never so secret, according to the saying of S. 
(t) Basil. lib. de Virgin.  Basil; There is not any Saint which doth not see all things that are done any where in the world. And of S. 
(u) Greg. hom. 40. Qui creatoris sui claritatem vident, nihil in creatura agitur, quod videre non possint.  Gregory: Nothing is done about any creature which they cannot see who see the clarity of their Creator. And again; 
(x) Lib. 12. Moral. c. 13.  We must believe that they who see the clarity of the omnipotent God within themselves, are not ignorant of any thing that is done without. Which doctrine of the Fathers, that Protestants may the less dislike, I prove to be grounded on the Scriptures.  
First, if Saints by reason of their blissful state do so participate of the divine nature and wisdom, 
About the first Argument.  as they communicate with him in the power of governing the nations of the world; 
This argument is strong, and you by struggling make the strength thereof more appear. You have devised 3. solutions. First you say pag. 311. lin. 10. That the jesuits exposition is novel, and never heard of in the ancient Church. Answer. It is ridiculous when you are pressed with the clear text of Scripture to call upon the ancient Church; you I say, who still, specially in this question, appeal from the ancient Fathers unto the Scripture, as pag. 302. and 298. you say that it is not just to make ancient custom a law & rule of right doctrine. And if you will stand to the rule of antiquity, I can produce more than fifty ancient Fathers that in express terms teach the doctrine the jesuit doth establish by the literal sense of God's word, to wit, that saints deceased are rulers and governors of men's actions & lives. Secondly, you say pag. 309. that the text of the Apocalyps, To him that shall have conquered I will give him power etc. is not understood of Saints deceased, but of living Saints. Answer. This to be false is apparent, by the very words which are these. Apoc. 226. He that shall have conquered & kept my words UNTIL THE END, to him I will give power over nations etc. But it is clear that living Saints cannot be said to have conquered, much less to have kept the word of God until ●he end. Therefore these words are violently wrested unto living Saints. Thirdly, you say pag. 320. lin. 3. That the promise, I will give them power over nation's, is understood only of judiciary power in the day of judgement. Answer. This ●o be false, is proved by the rule of interpretation of Scriptures, which protestants commend and praise above all other, to wit, when a text is doubtful, the same must be expounded by another which speaks of the ●●me matter, specially when the dark text doth expressly allude unto ●he clearer. This place of the Apocalips about Saints, I will give them power ●uer nations, and they shall rule them in a rod of iron, & they shall be broken in pieces ●●ke pots of clay, seemeth dark unto Protestants, and the question is, whether this be spoken of Saint's power in the militant Church, or only of ●he day of judgement? To clear this doubt, there is another text of Scripture uttered in the same words, to wit the second Psalm, which saith of Christ, That his father shall give him nations to be his inheritance, and he shall 〈◊〉 them in a rod of iron, and shall break them as pots of clay. To this text of the Psalm the place of the Apocalips doth allude. For our Lord in the Apocalips promiseth that he will give to Saint's power to govern in a rod of iron nations & countries, as his father promised, & gave the same power unto him, to wit in the aforesaid Psalm. But that place of the Psalm is without doubt to be understood of Christ's power of government in this world, and of his ruling in the militant Church, as Protestants grant, & it appeareth by the words precedent, I will give thee nations to be thine inheritance, and thou shalt rule them in a rod of iron. Ergo, the power of governing i● a rod of iron promised to Saints, must be understood, of government in this world and in the militant Church.  then Saints have knowledge of things that are done in this world, else how could they be able to govern and rule it? But Scripture in plain and express terms make Saints participate with Christ in the rule and government of the world, according to his promise 
(y) Because the Minister doth so much insult that the jesuit hath not proved any thing by Scripture, I will (that his folly may appear) examine particularly his answer unto these texts.  Apocalip. 2.26. To him that conquereth I will give power over nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, that is, with power of inflexible equity. And Apocal. 3. v. 12. I will make him a pillar in the Temple of my God. And the blessed say of themselves Apoc. 5.10. that they were chosen out of countries and nations to be Priests of God, & that they should rule with him upon the earth. Therefore they know what is done upon earth, so far forth at least, as the affairs of earth do specially appertain unto them; and such without doubt are our devotions towards them.  
Secondly, S. Paul Cor. 14.26. saith: Now we know but in part, we prophecy but in part, but when that of perfection shall come, that of part shall be evacuated: I know now but in part, then I shall know as I am known. By which words the Apostle signify that all knowledge both humane & divine, particularly the gift of Prophecy is contained eminently in the beatifical ●ight; so that the blessed Saints have the gift of Prophecy in a more excellent degree than had the Prophets in this world. But by the light of Prophecy holy men united with God, could see the secrets of hearts, as S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 14.15. By the gift of Prophecy the secrets of hearts are manifested; and also see things absent being present by light of understanding, from whence they were absent according to their substance 
(z) The Minister seeketh two ways to evade. First by denying that blessed Saints have the knowledge of prophecy in a more excellent and permanent manner then have the Prophets in this life. This is plain against the words of the Apostle cited by the Answerer. For the Apostle affirms that the gift of Prophecy in this life is but ex parte, imperfect in respect of th● Prophecy and knowledge of the next, which the blessed enjoy. Ex parte prophe●●mus, tunc cognoscam sicut & cognitus sum. Secondly, he saith, though the blessed have the gift of Prophecy eminently, it doth not follow that the● have the exercise thereof according to every material object it had in th●● life. I Answer, that the Saints of God having the gift of Prophecy permanently & eminently, & as knowledge pertinent unto their Blissful state must thereby know any secret they desire to know, & which belongeth to their state, & such are the prayers of the living made unto them  The Prophet Elizaeus 4. Reg. 5.16. saw in absence what passed betwixt his servant Giezi, 
About the 2. Argument.  and Naman, to whom he said, My hart was there present with thee. With fare great reason (saith Saint 
(*) Videbunt sancti omnia clausis oculis, etiam unde sunt corpore absen●●●  Augustine l. 22. the civet. c. 29.) The Saints of God even with eyes of body closed up shall see all things, not only present, but also from which they are corporally absent; for than shall be that perfection where the Apostle saith, we now prophecy but in pa●● ●ut then the imperfect shall be evacuated 
(a) To Answer the Ministers Cavil, that the place of S. Augustine is understood only of Saints after their resurrection; Note, that although the Father name the Saints in their glorified bodies, yet his reason convinceth the same of souls that be blessed before the resurrection. For his reason why the Saints after the resurrection shall see the secrets of hearts, and things from which they are substantially distant, is because then they shall Prophecy, not in part but fully, & evacuabitur quod ex parte est, all imperfection of knowledge shall be evacuated; but the deceased souls of Saints now before the resurrection do Prophecy not in part, but know as they are kowne, all imperfection of knowledge being evacuated from them. Ergo, they see things absent, and secrets of hearts now, no less than they shall do then. . This is that which S. Hierome doth defend To earnestly against Vigilantius, that the souls of the Martyrs are present where their shrines and relics are, & never absent but still ready to hear the prayers of their suppliants, not thinking that they are present in so many places substantially according to their souls, but that they are present, as Elizaeus was present unto Giezi in Spirit, beholding what passed as clearly as if they were corporally present.  
Thirdly, it is clearly to be proved by Scripture, that holy Angels see the prayers and actions, and affections of men. In the Apocalip. c. 8.4. An Angel offered unto God the prayers of men, which he could not have done, had he not known them 
(b) The Minister pag. 314. lin. 12. saith, this place is understood not of an Angel by nature, but of an Angel by type. Answer. We must understand the word of God in the literal sense, except we can clearly demonstrate by Scripture the literal sense to be absurd. And this obligation doth more specially lie upon Protestants, who from perpetual Tradition appeal unto Scripture understood by exact conference of places, as unto the last and supreme judge. But you bring not one word of Scripture to prove that in this place an Angel by nature cannot be understood, therefore you run to types and tropical senses without warrant of Scripture, by which yet you pretend you will be finally tried. Are you not then a ridiculous, and vain Appellant? . Our Saviour witnesseth Luc. 15.10. That the Angels rejoice at the conversion of a sinner. So they must needs know it, nor can they know it without knowing the sinner's heart 
(c) The Minister pag. 315. lin. 15. objects against this argument that holy men on earth rejoice at the conversion of sinners, yet they know not secrets of hearts, therefore this argument is not good: Angels rejoice in the conversion of sinners: Ergo they know the secret pious affections of men's hearts. Answer. The joy of just men in this life is imperfect and mingled with fear, nor do they rejoice in re, in the thing, but in spe, in the hope that men's conversions are sincere, and in the outward signs thereof. But the blessed Angel's joy is perfect, devoid of fear, & they rejoice not in the hope but in the thing & conversion itself. Therefore they must know the inward piety and devotion of the soul. , Conversion not being true, no● worthy of joy, except it proceed from the hart 
(d) Although the places speak directly of the Blessed, that they shallbe like unto Angels in incorruption of body, yet it proveth the same of beatitude of souls. For seeing the glory of body floweth from the glory of the soul, Blessed Saints should not be like to the Angels in glory of body, were they not like, and their equals in the blessed sight and vision their souls have of God, and of things contained in him. . S. Paul saith we are made a spectacle unto God and Angels, & he adjureth Timothy by God and his Angels, which showeth that we live in the sight of Angels, & that they behold what we do, and hear what we say even in our hearts. But as the same Scripture Luc. 20.36. Math. 22.30. averreth, the Saints are like unto the Angels, and equal unto the Angels. And in heaven the same is the measure of a man & of an Angel, Apocal. 21.17. Aug. ep. 112. Ergo, knowledge of our prayers is not to be denied to glorious Saints the fellows of Angels. Neither could Saints without knowledge of humane affairs be perfectly blessed, Blessedness being a state wherein all just and reasonable desires of nature are satisfied with uttermost content, according to that of the Psalm. 16.15. Satiabor cùm apparuerit gloria tua. And who can think that Saints full of glory and charity do not earnestly desire 
(e) The Minister against this replies pag. 319. saying: That the Saints desire to know no more than it is Gods will they should know. But it cannot be proved by Scripture, that it is Gods will they should know the things done on earth. Answer. We must still suppose that the courses, and wills of God be suitable to the nature of things, except the contrary be clearly proved. The nature of charity is to desire to know the state of our friends and their proceed, and affections towards us. Ergo, the Saints being full of charity are to be supposed to desire to know the state of their friends they left behind them upon earth, and for whose salvation they ●e solicitous; except our Minister can clearly demonstrate the con●●ary. And if they desire to know, than they know the particulars. ●or what our Minister saith pag. 319. lin. 20. That a father in Lon●●n may be solicitous about his son's safety that is at Constantinople, and yet not ●●ow the particulars, is frivolous: for this London Father is not blessed, & 〈◊〉 he may be desirous to know particulars and not know them, and so be perplexed for want of his knowledge. The Saints in heaven are blessed ●nd so desire not to know any thing, but they know it. Therefore seeing according to the instinct and inclination of solicitous Charity, they cannot ●ut desire the knowledge of their friends affairs, they must (if they are perfectly blessed) be satisfied in this their charitable desire.  to know such things as may concern their honour done upon earth, & the state of their friends & ●ouers living in danger, to secure them by their intercessions, of whose salvation they be still solicitous, though secure of their own, as S. Cyprian writes.  
Wherefore our doctrine, that Saints see our prayers, being delivered so constantly by the Ancient Fathers, so conformable unto the principles of Christian belief about the blessedness of Saints, so consonant unto express passages of Scripture, we may justly expect, that unto Protestants it would not be displeasing did they look on it with unpartial eyes: Specially they having no Text of Scripture that may make so much as a show of direct opposition against it. The place continually objected out of the Prophet Esay 63.16. Abraham knew us not 
(f) This place is impertinent also, in regard that Abraham and jacob, were not then Blessed nor saw God, from which Blessed vision the knowledge of things done in this world floweth as a sequel in the triumphant Saints. It is understood by S. Hierome in c. 63. Isa. de scientia approbationis, that Abraham & jacob did not know, that is, esteem and approve the proceeding of their children the jews. , Israel was ignorant of us, thou O Lord art our Father, thou our Redeemer, hath this sense: Abraham and jacob, when they lived upon earth, and carnally begot children, did not know particularly their posterities, and so could not bear them such particular affection; whereas God can, & doth distinctly see, and know their necessities aforehand, yea before men are borne, and provides against them, delivering his children out of them. And therefore he is the only Father, the only Redeemer, Abraham and jacob not deserving the name of Father, in comparison with God. Makes this against the Saints hearing our prayers 
(g) I desire the Reader to note on the one side how Protestants boast of Scriptures, & on the other how unable they are to bring one probable text against Invocation of Saints. Whereas contrariwise the places for the Catholic doctrine that Saints 〈◊〉 our prayers are so clear as Protestant's fly to their types and tropes, leaving the literal sense without warrant from the said Scripture, and so by casting a figure evade from God's clear word. Wherefore the cause they appeal unto Scripture, is not, because they think the Scripture is clear for them, & not much clearer for us; But because by Scripture they cannot be so clearly confounded as by Tradition. For about Scripture Heretics ever wrangle, pretending that by deductions and inferences they prove their doctrine being destitute of formal Scripture, whereof ignorant people cannot judge. For what know they when deductions are good? But when they were urged by Tradition to show the Pedigree of their Professors, they were as dumb as ours now are, that the Fathers said unto them, Confingant tale aliquod, let them if they can feign and device a pedigree of professors agreeing in the same form of Faith whereof the first was an Apostle, and the last a Protestant? ?   

The worship in Spirit and Truth, with outward prostration of the body due unto Saints. §. 3.  
THE third cause of their dislike is that we give the honour of the Creator unto the Creature, honouring Saints with Religious worship in spirit & truth, even to the prostrating of our bodies before them, whereby we give them honour due to God only, and bring in many Gods, as the Heathens did.  
To this Objection made long ago by Faustus the Manichee, S. Augustine lib. 20. cont. Faust. c. 22. answereth in these words: The Christian people doth celebrate with Religious solemnity the memories of Martyrs, to the end to stir up themselves to their imitation, & that they may be assisted with their prayers, and associated unto their merits etc. But with the worship termed in Greek Latria, and which the Latin language cannot express in one word, being a certain subjection, & servitude due properly to the Deity only, we do not honour any but only God, nor think that this honour ought to be given but only to him. These words of S. Augustine show, that worship of Saints to be on the one side more than Civil, and on the other side less than divine; more than civil, as proceeding out of acknowledgement of the excellency Saints have superior unto all natural, by which they be partakers of divine perfection in that high degree as no substance can by nature participate thereof, and therefore S. Augustine with good reason terms it religious 
(h) The Minister pag. 312. contrary to his custom proposeth this argument truly: To every kind of excellency there is a worship due proportional to that excellency: but the blessed Saints and Angels have a special kind of excellency, which is supernatural, superhumane, more than civil. Therefore special honour proportional to the excellency, and superior unto humane and civil, is due unto them. To this argument he answereth, That in Saints there is dignity of grace and glory, and honour is due in respect of the same, but not religious worship. Thus he: what is this but to trifle & talk in the air? who doubts (M. White) but there is the dignity of grace and glory in Saints, and honour due unto it? Speak plainly and mutter not betwixt the teeth. Is the honour due to Saints proportional to their excellency, that is, more than civil? Is it superhumane & supernatural as their excellency is? Is it superior unto that kind of honour which is due unto civil magistrates and other human honourable personages in regard of mere natural perfection? If you grant, that worship superhumane, and more than civil is due unto Saints, you grant as much as we desire to prove. The term of Religious worship is ambiguous. Sometimes religious worship is taken for that which is an elicitive & formal act of Religion, & of divine worship due unto the increated excellency of the Creator. In this sense the worship of Saints is not religious. At other times it is taken for worship which is an imperative act of Religion, that is, worship done to Saints out of inward Religion and devotion towards God, whose servants and friends they are. In this sense the worship of Saints is Religious, because it doth still proceed, and must needs flow from inward reverence towards God. For how can one worship Saints purely and only as they are the friends, servants, and temples of God, but out of the instinct of Religion unto God? Hence S. Augustine terms the honour of Saints Religious solemnity. And S. Chrysostome saith Serm. de Martyr. 69. That we admire their merits with Religious charity. . Less than divine, as proceeding from persuasion of excellency though super-human yet infinitely inferior unto the increate & immense excellency of God, yea depending essentially thereof. So that honour that is given to them dependeth of God, as being superexcellent participants of his perfection, & his singular friends.  
Now, that men may worship Angels and Saints in this sort with true affection of spirit, even to the prostration of their bodies may be proved out of holy Scriptures, supposing what is already showed, that they see our actions. For if Saints see our actions we may as lawfully and as profitably bow, kneel, and prostrate our bodies unto them, as unto Saints living on earth. But it is lawful to honour living Saints with bowing, & kneeling, and prostration of body as may be proved by many examples. 3. Reg. 18. Abdias an holy man 
(i) Timebat Dominum valde. , adored Elias 
(k) Cecidit super faciem suam.  prostrate on the ground, not for any humane excellency or respect, but because he was a Prophet, & a singular Saint of God. The Children of the Prophets 
(l) 4. Reg 2.15. Adoraverunt proni in terram.  seeing signs of supernatural and divine power in Elizaeus, coming unto him adored him prostrate on the ground. The Sunamite woman her Son being dead went presently unto Elizaeus, fell down at his feet, suing not so much with words, as with tears and mournful complaints for the resuscitation of her dead son 
(m) 4. Reg. 4. Cor●uit ad pedes eius, & adoravit super terram. . We read also, that holy men have adored with kneeling and prostration of their bodies holy Angels appearing unto them, as Abraham 
(n) Gen. 18.3. Adoravit in terram. , Loth 
(o) Gen. 19.19. 4. Adoravit pronus in terram. , Balaam 
(p) Num. 22. , joshua 
(q) joshua. 5.15. Cecidit pronus in terram adorans. , so that this Adoration of Saints and Angels 
(r) The Minister saith pag. 325. That Elias, Elizaeus, and the Angels were present visibly and sensibly, but the Saints are not sensibly present, & so we must not bow unto Saints deceased, as Children kneel not to their parents when they are absent. Answer. We have proved by the word of God that to be true which the Fathers teach with full consent namely S. Basill de Virgin. c. 16. Every Angel & holy Spirit of Saints, see what is done every where. And if this be true that they are present unto us, and we a spectacle unto them, why should we not worship them as much as if they were sensibly present? Not sense, but faith is the ground of our devotion towards Saints. May we worship Saints that are present to us according to the judgement of flesh, and not worship them that are present according to the judgement of faith, and the truth of God's word?  with more than human & natural respect, and with acknowledgement of more than humane and natural perfections in them, is clearly deduceable from holy Scripture. Neither have Protestant's reason to stand against so many pregnant examples of Scriptures upon the one example in the Apocalyps of the Angel refusing to be adored of S. john, saying: See thou do it not, I am one of thy fellow servants, adore God, specially this place being explicated long ago by the Fathers, as not against the custom of Christian Saint-worship; for either the Angel so appeared as Saint john took him to be God, & would have adored him as God, whereof the adorer was to be warned as S. Augustine 
(s) S. August. q. 61. in Genes. Corrigendus erat adorator.  expoundeth, or rather the Angel for bad that worship, not as injurious unto God, but only as coumbersome to himself, being loath (as S. Gregory noteth) after the incarnation of the Son of God to see a man lie prostrate unto him, specially so holy a man and so special a friend of jesus. And the words, Do it not, adore God, import no more, which I declare. Suppose that one praise a Preacher to his face for an excellent sermon he hath made, & the Preacher out of modesty say, Praise not me, I am an unworthy instrument of divine wisdom, praise the author of all: This his speech doth not import that he thinks to commend a Preachers sermon to be Idolatry, & giving away the glory of God to a creature, but only that modesty makes him wish that men would not praise him, but rather turn all the praise & glory of that sermon upon God. In this sort the Angel seeing the great and glorious friend of jesus prostrated at his fee●e, requested him to rise up, not condemning that adoration as Idolatrous, but refusing it as an action (though in regard of the offerer pious & godly, yet to him the receiver cumbersome) which he could not without some unwillingness behold, in regard of the dignity of the person he saw prostrated before him 
(t) The Minister in this place is large in bitterness against us, because he knows not what to say, or how to frame an argument against us out of this text of the Apocalips. For if S. john did give divine and religious worship to the Angel due to God only, the example is not to the purpose. For we say Saints are not to be honoured as Gods. If he did only offer honour more than civil unto the Angel in respect of his supernatural dignity, with prostration of body, than the same was not unlawful. For the Minister pag. 336. lin. 30. forced by the jesuits arguments, doth acknowledge such obeisances, and reverend comportments may, and must be done to Saints and Angels, when they are corporally & visibly present, as his Angel was visibly and corporally present to S. john. Now that this great Apostle of Christ was more ignorant than any Trivial Minister, that he knew not what was due unto Angels better than they, who will believe? It is evident that he offered no more than he might without injury unto God, else being warned he would not have offered it the second tyme. Therefore it was honour that might piously be given unto an Angel, though that Angel did in modesty forbidden him, to show the respect he bore to that great Apostle and friend of jesus, as the jesuit argueth, to which the Minister replies not a word, but only raileth. . This is evidently gathered out of the sacred text, seeing S. john after this prohibition did the second time offer the like honour to the same Angel; which he would never have done, had he not known adoration of Angels by mortal men, to be pious & religious on their parts, howsoever the Angels sometimes, for just respects, may in modesty refuse it.   

Praying to Saints not injurious to God's mercy, but rather a commendation thereof. §. 4.  
THE fourth cause why Protestants out of their zeal refuse to invocate Saints is the high conceit of God's mercy. For seeing he calleth all men immediately unto himself, 
(u) Matth. 11.18.  Come unto me all you that labour and I will refresh you, we wrong his infinite goodness in not approaching unto him by prayer, without the intercessions of Saints.  
This their zeal is not joined with Science of the course of God's merciful providence, whose divine wisdom prescribeth certain bounds, & as it were Laws to the infinity of his mercies. These orders and prescripts whosoever doth neglect, & yet hopes to obtain favours, doth not truly confide but erroneously presume. God is infinitely merciful, and saith, Come to me all that labour, yet the man that should seek to him for remission of sins, and would not submit himself to the Sacrament of water, should hope in vain, & to no purpose challenge him of his promise, Come to me all. Wherefore it imports us very much to know, and to use those means of approaching unto God that he hath appointed. Now, that the intercession of Saints is one means without which God will not bestow many graces & favours aswell spiritual as temporal, Christian Tradition doth deliver unto us. This Tradition is also suitable with the bountiful and noble disposition of God, which is not only to 
(x) 1. Reg. 2.30.  honour & glorify those that have been zealous of his honour to the effusion of their blood, but also to make the world know and understand that he doth honour them 
(y) Psalm. 1.38.17. ; for this knowledge is both for his glory, and also for the good of men, that seeing how highly God honoureth his constant friends they be provoked to endeavour by pure life to gain his favour.  
If revealed doctrine coming by succession of Bishops from the Apostles to us will not alone win belief in this point, even the Scriptures afford us sufficient testimonies thereof. When Abimelech King of Gesara, had offended God by taking away from Abraham his wife Sara, and penitent of the fact, (though committed but in ignorance) sought for pardon, did not God himself send him unto Abraham, saying, 
(z) Genes. 20. vers. 8.  Restore his wife unto the man for he is a Prophet, and he will pray for thee, and thou shalt live? By which example we see, that God's infinite mercy, who saith, Come to me all, will not many times bestow graces and favours, without intercession of his Saints, that men may know he love's & respects his friends. When he was offended against Eliphas and his companions, did he not send them unto his singularly beloved servant 
(a) The example of the friends of job is not particular, but for the instruction of all, as S. Paul saith; Whatsoever is written, is written for our instruction, and comfort. Rom. 15.4. Hence it follows that whatsoever is said to one person in Scripture is said to every one of the same state in whom the same circumstances do concur, whether it be spoken by way of promise, or warning, or threat. The promise made unto Abraham Gen. 15.2. I am thy protector, agrees unto all men that are as he was, devout worshippers of the true God. What the Angel spoke unto Agar, Gen. 16.9. Return unto thy Mistress, and be humbled under her, is also spoken unto every proud fugitive servant. Now these words spoken to the friends of job, Go to my servant, and my servant shall pray for you, and his presence I will regard, were spoken to them in regard they had offended God, & did find that God would not hear their single prayers. Therefore this precept belongs unto all men that know they have offended God and find their prayers not to be heard, and together feel the instinct of sacred humility to seek access unto God by some of his servants, whom they know to be more gracious than themselves, and able to help. And who more gracious with God & able to help us then triumphant Saints, as hath been proved? Therefore this precept is a warrant and an order unto all men being in the same state & circumstances of God's offence as the friends of job were, to seek and require the assistance & intercession of God's Blessed Saints. What the Minister here discourseth is all spoken in the air upon his own foolish imagination and fancy, against the full Tradition of the Church, and plain Scripture, to wit, that Saints deceased be not the friends and favourites of God, that can help us with him.  job, that he might be a mediator for them? Ite ad seruum meum job, & offerte holocaustum pro vobis; job autem seruus meus orabit pro vobis, faciem eius suscipiam ut non vobis imputetur stultitia. job. 42. vers. 8. Out of which place two things are clearly gathered. First, that though God's mercy be infinite, yet many times he will not grant our prayers, but in such manner as he will make us beholding to his Saints. Secondly, that we ought to prostrate our prayers unto him, as with great confidence in his goodness, so likewise with a most feeling humble distrust of our own worthiness; which affection cannot but move us to seek the intercession of them we know to be most highly gracious in his favour. So that upon pretence of God's great mercy, to reject the mediation of Saints, is zeal without Science, devotion not throughly instructed about the laws and orders that God hath prescribed unto his measureless mercy, by his incomprehensible wisdom. And if we grieve to humble ourselves unto Saints and repine at God's providence, that he will not many times grant our supplications without honouring his Saints, and making us bound unto them, we may justly expect to hear what he said to one in like case: Friend, I do thee no wrong, may I not dispense my mercies as I please? If I will bestow them in such sort as to join together with thy good the honour of my friends, Is thine eye evil because I am good, and courteous to them that have loved me more than their own lives 
(b) The Minister pag. 334. lin. 6. cavilleth, That the jesuits discourse is such as one may wonder, and ask whether such discoursers ever heard that the son of God was crucified for us? Answer. This cavil is at the least idle, if not impious, for it maketh as much against the discourse of God himself, who said to the friends of job, Go to my servant job, and he shall pray for you, and him I will regard in your behalf, without mention of Christ jesus. Will the Minister here wonder and ask, whether God did know and remember that his Son was to be crucified for men, and that men could obtain nothing of him but in regard of his future passion and merit? God forbidden he should be so captious. For the merits & intercessions of Saints be no dishonour to the only merit & mediation of Christ, yea they all flow from it. Hence the merit of Christ is ever supposed & involved in all means and helps of salvation, nor is it necessary every where to name it. ?   

Invocation of Saints not an injury but an honour to Christ the only Mediator. §. 5.  
ANOTHER show of piety is pretended against prayer unto Saints, that it seems to overthrew the mediatorship of Christ, which Saint Paul 
(*) 1. Tim. 2.3.  commends as only, unus mediator Dei & hominum Christus jesus. But in showing the vanity of this shadow, I shall not need to be long, seeing this respect would also make us neglect & not use the mediation of living Saints out of fear of disannulling the only mediatorship of Christ. It is no more against the honour of the only mediatorship of Christ to pray unto Saints deceased, then unto Saints living; yea the praying unto these kind of Saints may seem more dishonourable, because we join with him men imprisoned in mortality, militant in dangers, and not wanting some blemishes and defects. Whereas the other Saints are glorious, pure from any the least imaginable spot settled in the consummation of ineffable bliss. But the Scripture [Rom. 15.30. job. 42.8.] allows, yea commands prayer unto living Saints, & consequently praying unto them is not injurious unto the only mediator Christ. Therefore the praying unto Saints deceased that are in glory with God, is not injurious unto the only mediatorship of Christ 
(c) 
The Minister is here pag. 335. vexed; for this argument of praying unto living Saints and craving their intercession convinceth & stoppeth our Adversary's mouths when they urge that praying unto glorious Saints destroyeth the only mediatorship of Christ. Why should praying unto glorious Saints & to seek their mediation be injurious unto the only mediatorship of Christ, rather than the mediation of living Saints?  
His answer is large, but all is reduced to six evasions. First he saith, that we may request the prayers of living Saints but not invocate them: this is ridiculous. For what is it to invocate but to call upon, but to implore, but to request? specially with submission, and acknowledging of superhumane dignity in the person prayed unto. Do not Protestants themselves translate Invocate, to call upon? Rom. 10.14. when the holy Sunamite with humble obeisance, prostrate on the ground, requested Elizaeus for the resuscitation of her Son, did she not invocate him? Secondly he saith: That the living Saints be present with the living. What is this to the purpose? be not many mediators present, more than one only, aswell as many mediators absent? If the only mediator may have many subordinate mediators present, without prejudice unto the onelynes and singularity of his mediatorship, why not many subordinate mediators absent? Nor is it true, that glorious Saints be not present unto us, seeing they see as hath been proved, all things done in the world that belong to their state; in which respect the holy Fathers of better credit than any Minister, say, Vniversi sancti ubique sunt & omnibus prosunt. S. Maximus de Martyr. Tauricis. Hieron. adversus Vigilant. & Basil. de Sanct. virgin. c. 8. Angeli ubique praesentes sunt, & quae hic geruntur inspiciunt. Saints and Angels are every where present, because from heaven they behold what is every where done. Fourthly he saith, That Papists make Saints mediators that see the secrets of hearts. This is also silly. For where doth the Scripture say that Christ is the only mediator that knows the secrets of hearts, but that besides him there may be other mediators, so they see not the hart? If Christ the only mediator may have the company of many subordinate mediators, that be clothed with misery and ignorance, why not the company of many glorious mediators that see God and in God our hearts? How many living Saints did by the gift of prophecy see the secret thoughts of men, & yet did pray and intercede for men that craved their patronage? Did they thereby overthrew the only mediatorship of Christ? God forbidden. Fiftly he saith, that as it is an injury to the supreme Magistrate, for any of his subjects to constitute a Master of Requests without his authority; so likewise it is an injury to Christ for us worms of the earth, without warrant from God's word, to constitute Saints and Angels mediators of our prayers. Answer. The Minister is very simple i● he cannot discern the difference betwixt a master of Requests, and a mediator to the King by way of favour. The Master of Requests, is an office of authority made by the king's authority, without whose special order he cannot be appointed. But the office of mediator, that is, of a friend for us with the king, is an office of grace and favour, and made by the king's grace & favour, bestowed on a man without any further authority. Hence if the king make one his familiar Friend or Favourite, we may (if we can) make him our friend and mediator unto the king, without further warrant or authority. Yea sometimes Kings are not willing that their Favourites should have so many suitors, which yet they cannot hinder if they will have Favourites, the right of being mediators for others to the King, being involved in the grace of Princely favours. Now to say, that men seeking grace of the king by his Favourite, do constitute without his order a Master of Requests, is ridiculous. Yea rather it were folly, presumption, clownishness for a poor beggar unknown in the Court to intrude his suits into the King's audience without the mediation of some that are familiar about him. Wherefore seeing God hath made Saints his especial friends, and heavenly favourites, and able to help us, what further warrant is needful, besides our own necessities, to seek their intercession? Sixtly, the Minister saith, That living Saints are joint-suitors with us, who likewise pray for their own needs, and so are not mere mediators. But Saints deceased be not joint-suitors, but mere mediators, because they pray and intercede for us, and not for themselves. Answer. First the Saints in heaven do pray for themselves, to wit, for the glorious resuscitation of their bodies, and that God will revenge their deaths upon their persecutors, Apoc. 5. Secondly, though Saints do not deprecate for their own sins, and needs, this doth not show that they are mere mediators and suitors of higher kind than living Saints, but only that they are grown unto greater perfection in the same kind of grace, and unto the consummation thereof, unto which we are not yet arrived. Even as a grown man doth not need so many things as doth the Child, and yet is he a creature of the same nature and ●ind as the Child.  .  
I add, that to make Saints mediators subordinate unto, & dependent of Christ, is to increase his glory. For first, if only Christ jesus is worthy to have immediate access unto God, and all other Saints men & Angels be mediators and intercessors, not having access unto God but by him, then certainly that Saints mediate and intercede for us, is exceeding glorious unto Christ jesus. But Catholics teach that Saints be such intercessors as have no access unto God, but through Christ jesus, by mediation of his merits, passion, and death, there being no other name in heaven or in earth by which we are to be saved. Therefore the doctrine that makes Saints subordinate mediators unto Christ by him approaching unto God, doth magnify and extol the supremacy of Christ's mediatorship, more than if in this kind of mediation he had none depending on him.  
Whence I infer, that Protestants mistake our doctrine when they say we teach that Saints are fellow-mediatours with Christ, and that we bring them in to supply the defect of his intercession that otherwise would not be sufficient. This we do neither teach, nor believe, but that the merits of Christ are infinite, every drop of his precious blood able to pay the full ransom of a million of worlds. That the Saints mediate and intercede for us unto Christ, is for his greater glory, by whose merits they are made worthy of that dignity, and whom by their intercessions they acknowledge to be the fountain of all good that comes unto mankind. If it be a glory to the root of a tree to have many boughs and branches loaden with excellent fruit, the Saints being but branches of Christ jesus the true Vine-tree, john 15.15. surely the honour of all their merits springs originally, & is referred finally unto him. And as it is impossible to honour and praise the boughs without honouring and praising of the root: So likewise it is not possible that Catholics, who acknowledge that Saints have all their grace merit & favour with God from Christ jesus, should honour them, or pray unto them, without honouring Christ, & without praying finally ever unto him.  
Wherefore Saints when they pray for us that God would forgive us our sins, grant us favours that help us towards eternal life, they do not allege their merits as a sufficient motive of the grant, but the merits of Christ. And when holy ancient Fathers in their prayers allege unto God the merits of Saints, this is because their merits make them gracious in God's sight, and worthy that the graces they crave for us be granted unto us, not by the application of their merits, but only through the application of the merits of Christ. Put case, that a Prince should ransom a great multitude of his subjects taken prisoners, and held in miserable thraldom, paying for them a sufficient and abundant ransom, yet so, that none should have the fruit of that Redemption but those whom the King should singularly choose, and make worthy of that favour. Suppose that some noble man in the Court (whom his Merits made gracious with the King) should by his interceding obtain that the benefit of that ransom should be extended to some one whom he particularly affects: Surely this Captive should be redeemed & delivered through the ransom paid by the King, not by the merits of the Noble man interceding for him, whose merits concurred thereunto only remotely, and a fare off.  
To apply this similitude, Christ jesus hath paid an abundant price for man's redemption, yet none enjoy the benefits thereof, but they to whom by special grace he applieth the same. Sinners beseech him by the merits of Saints that made them gracious in his sight, that he will vouchsafe to apply the merit of his Passion unto them for the obtaining of favours conducing unto eternal life. Christ grants their petition and request, and thereupon applies his merits unto them: These men cannot be properly said to be saved through the merits of Saints, but only through the merits of Christ, specially because even the merits of Saints that concurred thereunto, proceed originally from the merits of CHRIST.   

How it is lawful to appropriate the obtaining of graces, and cures unto Saints. §. 6.  
OUR Adversaries finding our Invocation of Saints for substance practised in God's Church ever since her primitive times, take exceptions at some circumstances thereof, which they think new, & not justifiable by Antiquity, which are principally three, whereon are grounded other three causes of their dislike.  
So the sixth reason of their dislike is, that we distribute amongst Saints offices of curing diseases, & seek some kind of favour of one, some of another, of which practice there is no example in Antiquity; yea it seems to resemble the levity of heathenish superstition, who did multiply Gods according to the multitude of the things they sought to obtain of them.  
I answer, that to seek some favours by the intercession of one Saint rather than of another, was the judgement 
(d) The Minister saith The jesuit by Fathers, meaneth the Trident Fathers not the ancient Fathers. This is ridiculous, for the jesuit saith the ancient Fathers in S. Augustine's time, that is, 12. hundred years before the Council of Trident. And the Minister cannot find one Syllable in the Council of Trent for this appropriation, that may breed suspicion that the jesuit meaneth them, whereas he brings the practice and patronage of Saint Augustine himself, proving by Scripture this appropriation of miraculous benefits, to one place, and Saint, more than to another. And S. Paul ad Hebr. 2.10. saying, wherein himself suffered, and was tempted, therein he is potent to help them that are tempted, shows a reason why we should invocate in some temptations, rather some Saint than another, as S. Laurence against fire, S. Apollonia against the toothache etc. because wherein themselves were tried they are specially able to help others.  of the Fathers in S. Augustine's time which he himself practised upon this occasion. In the town of Hippo, one of the family of S. Augustine accused a Priest of an heinous crime, making his accusation good by oath, which the other did reject, in like manner purging himself by oath. The fact being open and scandalous seeing of necessity one of them was perjured, S. Augustine sent them both into Italy to the shrine of Saint Felix of Nola, at whose relics perjured persons were usually discovered. In defence of which fact he writes an Epistle to his people of Hippo, allowing of this proceeding, showing that to seek recourse rather to one Saint than another is pious and godly, wondering at the secret providence of God therein: 
(e) The Minister saith, that this narration is not to the purpose, because there is no mention of Invocation of S. Felix, or of oblation to him. Answer. This is idle. For we have proved by S. Augustine, and Fathers, and Scriptures that Saints are to be prayed unto: only the question now is, whether it be lawful to seek some benefits at one place, and by one Saint, rather than another: which to be lawful S. Augustine affirms and proveth by deduction from Scripture, showing it to have beme the practice of his age, and not heathenish superstition. And though the Minister rail against this practice, with many bitter new coined phrases, it makes no matter; for what wise man will prefer words before proofs? a Minister before S. Augustine? As for the Invocation of S. Felix in particular, with vows and oblations at his Tomb, many testimonies of S. Augustine, S. Paulinus, and Severus Sulpitius might be brought if there were need.  Although (saith he) men by experience see this to be true, yet who is able to discover the Counsel of God, why in some places such miracles are done, in other places they are not? For is not Africa stored with shrines of blessed Martyrs? and yet do we not know any such miracles to be done here by their intercessions. For seeing, as the Apostle saith, all Saints have not the gift of curing diseases, not all the knowledge to discern spirits; so likewise at the shrines of all Martyrs these things are not done, because he will not have them every where done, who giveth to every one particular gifts, according to his pleasure.  
This being the practice of the pure Christian Church, defended by the learnedst Father, and worthiest Divine that ever Christianity bred, by him grounded on the Scripture, and on the unsearchable course of the divine Providence, never censured nor condemned by any Father, we need not fear superstition in seeking some kind of favours & benefits by the peculiar intercession of certain Saints, specially seeing this was usual in the Church, confirmed by many miracles, recorded by most learned Saints that lived in the purest Christian ages. S. Aug. in his 22. book civet. c. 8. and in tom. serm. fol. 182. edit. Lovan. relates, the History of two cured at the tomb of Saint Stephen at Hippo, that could not be cured at any other shrine of Saints. Alibi curari non potuit, imo facillimè potuit, sed non est curatus; huic loco curandus divina praedestinatione seruatus. Saint Lucy went on pilgrimage unto the body of Saint Agatha, for help of her mother, putting peculiar confidence in her intercession as being a Christian Virgin of her country and profession. S. justina Virgin being by the Devil tempted against Virginal purity, fled to the most glorious of Virgins: Virginem Mariam rogavit ut periclitanti virgini opem ferret, 〈◊〉 S. Nazianzen 
(f) Greg. Nazian. orat. in S. Cypr.  writes. S. Martinian (as Paulinus 
(g) Paulin. Epist. ad Cytherium.  records) having suffered shipwreck, called with peculiar devotion and trust upon S. Paul, whose Epistles he did highly honour, remembering that the same Saint yet living, delivered an hundred and seaventy souls from the like peril; neither was his petition frustrate. Notwithstanding we confess that herein a discreet mediocrity is to be observed. And if abuses be crept in amongst common people, we desire they should be reform, but so, that paring away the abuse, we take not away the substance of a pious Christian custom. For we cannot expect that simple people in matter of Religion will not sometimes foolishly and superstitiously mistake; which when it happens, we must (as S. Augustine 
(h) August. de moribus Ecclesiae. c. 10.  saith) Ignorantiam instruere, pertinaciam deridere.   

Concerning oblations made unto Saints. §. 7.  
THE seaventh cause of dislike, is our offering oblations unto Saints, which your Majesty doth object peculiarly as done to the Blessed Virgin MARY.  
I answer, if any Catholic should offer to the blessed mother of God by way of sacrifice any the least thing, he were severely to be rebuked, and better instructed. For sacrifice 
(i) Nulli Martyrum sed ipsi Deo Martyrum, quamuis in memorias Martyrum constituimus altaria. Augustin. contra Faust. l. 20. c. 12.  is a religious homage due to God only. In which respect the sacrifice of the holy Eucharist is never offered unto any but unto God, in memory and honour of Saints. Herein the Collyridians women-Priests did err, who did sacrifice a wafer-cake unto the blessed Virgin; which kind of worship under the title of Adoration Saint Epiphanius 
(k) Epiph. haeres. c. 9  reproves, allowing the Catholic worship, there terming her honourable Virgin, not for humane or civil, but for divine and supernatural respects.  
True it is, that in Catholic countries' people offer 
(*) They are said offered unto Saints, not because they are given unto them immediately in their own persons, but because they are offered at their shrines & Images, as ornaments or monuments.  unto Saints, Lights, Flowers, and chains, not as sacrifices but as ornaments to set forth their tombs and shrines, wherein they do not descent from Antiquity, nor from God's holy will, who hath confirmed such devotions by miracle, as diverse Authors worthy of all credit relate, particularly. S. Augustine by 
(l) Caluin. instit. l. 5. c. 4.  Protestants allowed, as the most faithful witness of Antiquity 
(m) August. l. 22. de civet. c. 8. . He tells of a woman stark blind that recovered her sight by laying to her eyes flowers which had touched the shrine wherein were carried about the relics of the most glorious martyr S. Stephen 
(n) The Minister saith that S. Augustine doth not affirm that flowers, and the like were offered unto Saints. I Answer, if offering, signify Sacrificing, neither doth S. Augustine mention this as done in his age, nor do we practise it in ours. But if offering be taken (as we take it) for laying flowers and other such things on the Tombs of Martyrs to adorn and beautify their shrines, S. Augustin doth mention oblations of flowers, & suck like ornaments to have beme made unto the Tombs of Martyrs, & this devotion to have been confirmed by miracle, as is manifest. . A more wonderful example in the same kind he relateth done upon an old man of good note, who being sick & ready to dye, did yet very obstinately refuse to believe in Christ, and leave his Idolatry, although he was very earnestly moved thereunto by his children that were zealous Christians. His Son in law despairing to prevail by persuasion, resolved to go and pray at the Tomb of Saint Stephen, and having performed his devotions with burning affection, with many groans and tears, being to departed, took with him some flowers that were on the shrine, and laid them secretly under his Father in Law his head the night as he went to sleep. Behold the old man next morning awaking out of his sleep, cryeth out, desiring them to go strait to call the Bishop to baptise him. He had his desire, he was baptised. Afterwards as long as he lived, he had this prayer in his mouth, Lord jesus receive my spirit, being altogether ignorant that prayer was the prayer, & last speech of Saint Stephen when he was stoned to death by the jews, which also were the last words of this happy old man, for not long after pronouncing those words he gave up his soul. Other oblations also Catholics use to offer unto Saints, not as sacrifices, but as memories & monuments of benefits received, as pictures of Lymms by Saints prayers miraculously cured. That therein they do not deflect from ancient Christian devotion, and that the Christian Church in her best times used universally to make such oblations, Theodoret 
(o) Theodoret. de curandis Graecorum affect. l. 8.  is a sufficient witness, who writing against the Gentills, allegeth as a manifest sign of Christ's Godhead and Omnipotency, that Idols being excluded he brought in Martyrs to be honoured in their room, not superstitiously as Gods, but religiously as divine men, and Gods special friends. Christian people (saith he) present themselves unto Martyrs, not as unto Gods, but as unto the Martyrs of God, and divine men, invocating & beseeching them to be intercessors for them unto God. And those that piously, and with Faith pray, obtain what they desire, as testify the oblations which they (being thereunto bound by their vows) present in the Chappells of Saints, as tokens of health recovered. For some hang up Images of eyes, others of ears, others of hands, some made of gold, some made of silver 
(p) The Minister also here denyeth that these ancient Christians did offer these oblations at the shrines of Martyrs in token of gratitude, for benefits received. Whereas Theodoret saith expressly, that they were vows which they had made, and were bound to pay unto the Martyrs, that is, unto their shrines, as monuments of their power in curing them. . Thus he, so general and notorious, even unto Infidels, was this Christian devition.   

The Roman Church set forms of Prayer, without cause misliked. §. 8.  
FINALLY Protestant's dislike the circumstance of praying in a set form unto Saints, and that we appoint a particular office unto the Blessed Virgin Mary, which cannot be proved to have been used in the Primitive Church 
(q) The Minister pag. 353. brings prayers used in the Roman missals as though they were absurd, Call upon the sweet name of Mary. Saints interceding we may deserve to be delivered from all necessities. The Saints merits interceding, Lord absolve us from all sins. I Answer: all these speeches are the very words used by the full consent of ancient Fathers, as you may find in the fifth Demonstration. Doth the Minister expect that for fear at his railing we should leave all antiquity? We must not do so, nor do we, nor may we fear the bitterness of man's tongue in so high degree. .  
I answer, that the Primer, or Office (so termed) of our Lady, is not an office properly and principally directed unto her, but an Office containing praises of God, taken out of holy Scripture, wherein commemoration of her is made. So as I dare say that the prayers of that office of our Lady that are directed unto her, make not the hundred part thereof. And seeing it is most certain that the Christian Church in her best times did frequently pray unto Saints, what reason have we to think that in her set form of prayers, she did not use to crave their intercession?  
If it be lawful, pious, and profitable when we pray unto God, to pray also to Saints by their mediation offering our prayers to him, why should any mislike the doing of this in a set form that is allowed by the Church? why should this displease, rather than an extemporal form?  
But further we can prove that the Church in her best 
(r) The Minister here questioneth our meaning by the word primitive. I answer, that we hold, that true Christian Religion planted by the Apostles, was not a mere shadow that vanished away in a trice, but that the belief and practise thereof continued in the world after their decease. This Religion in respect of being in the world was primitive in the days of the Apostles, and of them that saw the Apostles and were converted by them. But in respect of free public profession, the same was never Primitive, till the fourth Age, that is, under Constantine. Now, the monuments of the first and second Age after the Apostles in regard of persecution are few, & many Christian Histories & monuments, yea in a manner all, were made away by Dioclesian. So that the best way to know what Religion was professed immediately upon the death of the Apostles, is to examine what form of Religion in the days of Constantine came from under ground, & secret meetings, into the free view of the world. For no doubt but that Religion was freely professed under Constantine, that was cruelly persecuted, and the monuments thereof abolished by Dioclesian Constantine his Predecessor, and the other Pagan Emperors before him. But the Christian profession of Constantine's age is so clearly Catholic, as our Ministers fear trial thereby, and would rather have all reduced unto those ages whereof the monuments are scarce, for therein they hope to find best patronage for their negative religion, and for their Invisible Perpetual, Nameless Notorious Professors.  times, did pray unto Saints in set forms, as Catholics now do, even with a form of prayer, acknowledged & confessed by the Magdeburgians Cent. 4. c. 4. to have been in use even in the fourth age after Christ, in which the four first general Counsels were held. But if they will perchance say that they do not so much dislike set forms unto Saints, as some Phrases or speeches in our prayerbooks, that seem to give too much unto Creatures, as our calling the Blessed Virgin Mother of Grace, Mother of mercy, saying to her, Lady protect us from the Devil, receive us in the hour of death, give light to the blind, pardon to the guilty, remove from us all evil etc. I answer, these speeches cannot justly be disliked, because they are understood in a pious sense known to Catholics; a sense obvious & plain according to the phrase of Scripture, and which the words may well bear even according to the custom of speech. The nature of things being various, and the answerable conceits of men copious, but words to express such conceits scant and in great paucity, necessity doth enforce us to use words appliable to diverse senses. For example, one man may deliver another from death, either by authority pardoning him as do Kings, or by justice defending him as do Advocates, by force taking him out of his enemy's hands as do Soldiers, or paying his ransom to them that keep him captive, as Almoners, finally by begging his life of them that have power to take it away, as intercessors. These be very different ways of relief, yet have we but one word to express them all, to wit, to save a man's life, which therefore is to be understood according to the subject it is applied. And if men want understanding, or will not take our words according to the matter they are applied unto, there can never want Cavils, unless we either speak not at all, or when we speak still use long circumlocutions, which were ridiculous, & in verse impossible, the metre not permitting it. And yet the aforesaid misliked phrases in the office of the Blessed Virgin are taken out of the Hymns and Verses thereof. If they that by begging obtain of the king the life of one condemned to death, may be, & are commonly 
(s) Our Adversary in this place playeth the right Minister, according to the new order, & very handsomely telleth a lie saying to the jesuit; You labour to qualify your blasphemous words by Turrian honourable exposition, pretending you SAY one thing, and MEAN another. What boldness is this? doth not the jesuit say, that they not only mean well, but also speak well, and according to the rigour of speech, the phrase of Scripture, & holy Fathers? How then doth he pretend that we say one thing, and mean another?  said to save his life, though they saved him by intercession, not by their proper authority; why may not Saints be said to give us the things which by their prayers they obtain for us? Why may not the Church speak in Hymns, & in Verse, as the learnedst Fathers spoke even in Prose, never imagining that any would mistake their meaning? Saint Gregory Nazianzen, for his excellent learning termed by the Grecians The Divine, thus prayeth unto Saint Cyprian. Look down on us from heaven with a propitious eye, guide our works and ways, feed this holy flock, govern it with us, dispose some of them, as fare as is possible, to a better state. Cast out importune and troublesome wolves that cavil & catch at syllables, vouchsafe us the perfect and clear splendour of the B. Trinity, with whom thou art already present 
(t) The Minister here saith the jesuit cannot prove that Gregory Nazianzen did Invocate S. Cyprian, but only made an Oratoriall Apostrophe unto him: As Papists say in their hymn, all hail o Cross, & yet they do not pray to the wooden Crosse. This is vanity. For, that S. Gregory Nazianzen did properly invocate S. Cyprian. I prove by this demonstration. For one to call upon some person for aid, thinking him that he doth hear him, & is able to help, is to Invocate him. S. Gregory Nazianzen did call upon S. Cyprian for help, thinking he heard him, & was able to help him; for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I know well that Blessed Saints hear me, and are ready to reach out their hand to such as need their help. Ergo, he did properly Invocate him, & pray unto him. . And not only Fathers but also Scriptures speak of Saints in the same sort, our Saviour saying; Make to yourselves friends of the riches of Iniquity, that when you die, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles. If then the Saints of God by the mouth of Verity itself be said to receive their friends when they dye into the eternal Tabernacles, because God moved by their prayers, admits them into the Blissful vision of his essence; why may not the Church and her children crave the Blessed Virgins intercessions in these words: Mother of Mercy, receive us in the hour of death? And seeing God in Scripture is termed Mercy, why should not she be styled mother of mercy, that is undoubtedly mother of God, especially seeing that in, and of her the Author of mercy & grace was conceived and borne, and she filled with grace and charity above all other Creatures 
(u) The silly Minister not knowing which way to turn himself to find some seeming ground of carping at the forms of the Catholic Missals & Roman Liturgy, he goeth catching at the phrases of private writers. To what purpose? If the Authors cannot justify their phrases & Metaphors, let him dislike them in God's name. What is this to the Catholic Church; Some writer did not apply his Metaphor fitly: Ergo, the Roman Church is Idolatrous? ?  
That other phrase much disliked by your Majesty, that God reserving justice to himself, hath given away mercy to his mother, is not used by the Church in any of her prayers, nor allowed of by Catholic Divines, nor will we justify it, being an harsh and unfitting Metaphor, though thereby the Authors thereof express a truth, to wit, that the Blessed Virgin is exceeding gracious with her Son, and her intercession very potent, alluding to a phrase of Scripture used Hester cap. 5.3.6. & cap. 7.2. Mark 6.23. whereby such as are gracious with a prince are said that they may have any thing, though half of his Kingdom: so, deuiding God's Kingdom into justice and Mercy, to show how gracious the Blessed Virgin is with her Son, they say, God hath given her one half of his Kingdom, to wit, his Mercy, which is a Metaphor far fetched, not to be used, howsoever in charity it may be excused.    

THE FOURTH POINT.  
The Liturgy, & private prayers for the Ignorant, in an unknown tongue.  
THE custom of the Roman Church in this point is agreeable to the custom of the Church in all Ages, and also of 
(*) The Minister pag. 356. lin. 22. It is false according to the Tenet of Bellarmine himself, that all other Churches which differ from Protestant's have their public service in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. Answer. This is your fashion when you have not what to reply, you impose your sayings upon your Adversary, and then urge they are false. The Answerer never said that all Churches which differ from Protestants, have their service in Hebrew, Greek or Latin, for this he knew to be false in the Maronits, Armenians, Egyptians, Aethiopians, Russians: But he said, they all agree with the Roman, in that they have their divine service in a language not vulgar, nor commonly known of the people: this is true, for the forenamed Christians have their Liturgies in a special language which is not their vulgar.  all Churches now in the world bearing the name of Christian, though opposite unto the Roman (only those of the pretended Reformation excepted) which constant concurrence is a great sign that the same is very conform unto reason, and not any where forbidden in God's word, which will easily appear if we look particularly into the same.  
For we may imagine a triple state of Liturgy in an unkowne tongue. The first, in a language altogether 
(x) The Minister pag. 369. saith: This is a Chimaera, & Non Ens, because there was never such a Liturgy in the Church. Answer. In the beginning of the Church there was not any set Form of public prayer, but the sacred Minister did extemporally make prayers at meetings. And that some than did use to make extemporal prayers in languages altogether unknown, even to themselves, appears by the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. Nor is it enough for a Minister to say, that this is a Non Ens, and a Chimaera, because it never was. For first, though it never were, yet it might have been; and things that be possible, and might have been be not Chimeras. Secondly, that in meetings some did use a language altogether unknown at prayer, S. Paul doth witness, who (I trow) is to be believed before a Minister. He forbids the speaking in the Church with an unknown tongue, when there is none present that can understand and interpret, 1. Cor. 14.27.28. which he would not have done, had it not been used. Therefore some did use prayers in public Churchmeetings in a language so unknown, as no man present could understand and interpret the same, no not themselves, & so the Fathers interpret S. Paul. S. Augustine de Genes. ad litter. lib. 12. c. 8. & 9 S. Ambrose, Theophilact, specially S. Chrysostome. Erant, saith he, multi qui precabantur & lingua sonabant, ment verò quid dixissent non intelligebant: There were many that sounded prayers in an unknown tongue which even themselves did not understand.  unknown, in the which no man in the Church speaks, no man understands beside the Celebrant himself, nor he neither, but by Enthusiasm or inspiration of the holy Ghost: Without question it is inconvenient that public prayer should be said in a language in this sort unknown, and this is proved by the reasons the Apostle brings 1. Cor. 14. against an unknown tongue in the Church. Secondly, in a language unknown to most, even of the better sort of the Church, yet some know it, and others with facility may learn it. To use a language in the Church for public prayer in this sort unknown cannot be proved unlawful, nor forbidden by the Apostle, seeing the reasons brought by him against a language unknown make not against this. For Saint Paul reprehends in the public Liturgy a language so unknown, as the Minister or the Church that supplies the place of the Idiot & Ignorant, cannot upon his knowledge of the goodness of the prayer say thereunto Amen, in the name of them all. But when the language is known by some of the Church & may with facility be learned by others, there is, or may easily be found one able to supply the place of the Idiot and ignorant, and answer in their person Amen, out of his intelligence of the prayer in that unknown tongue.  
Notwithstanding the Roman Church doth not approve the use of a language in this sort unknown, as appears by the late dispensation of Paulus the fift, unto jesuits to turn the Liturgy of the Mass, into the vulgar language of China, and to use the same till the Latin language grow more known and familiar in that country. For though public prayers in a language thus unknown cannot be proved unlawful, yet it is undecent to use a language which to the whole multitude of hearers, may seem barbarous and uncouth. Thirdly, a language may be termed unknown, because it is not the vulgar 
(z) The Minister pag. 370. argueth in this sort. The old rule was, Barbarus hic ego sum qui non intelligor ulli; & accordingly your Masse-preists are mere barbarians to the ordinary sort of people. Answer. If he be a Barbarian that is not understood, the Minister should be a Barbarian to himself, who understands not himself. Did he understand what he saith, he would understand that this argument proveth the contrary to what he intendeth. For his old rule, Barbarus hîc ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli, in English soundeth thus, I am a Barbarian, where I am understood of no man, non intelligor ulli. But the Catholic Priest saying the Latin mass in the Latin Church is understood of many. How then can he be a Barbarian by this old rule? The latin tongue is known of the best, most civil, and most principal persons in the Western parts of the world. Wherefore he that speaks it is not Barbarous, but accounted rather learned to him that understands not Latin: for the cause why the Latin in these parts is not understood is not the strangeness of the language, but the rudeness of the hearer, and want of the best education. But in a country where the best, civilest, and most learned know not Latin, the Latin is Barbarous. , though most men of better sort understand it. Such was anciently the latin language in the whole Roman Empire, and now is in the Latin Church. For not only Priests understand the same (or if some few do not, it is the fault of Bishops that ordain them) but also an innumerable company of Laymen, not only addicted to learning, but also other gentlemen, yea many of the vulgar, partly by reason of the affinity their mother tongue hath with the Latin, partly out of education, which commonly when they are children they have 
(A) What the Minister here bringeth out of Suarez that it is not necessary the Minister or Priest understand the language, in which mass is said, is misunderstood by him. For Suarez doth not mean that the Priest may lawfully be ignorant of the language of the mass, or that he doth not sin in saying mass without knowledge of the tongue; but only, that such prayers are notwithstanding available unto others that pray with the Minister, and offer them unto God in the faith of the Church. For if the understanding of the Minister were necessary to make the public prayers pleasing to God, and available, them if the Minister chance to be distracted, & have his mind on other matters the people should lose the fruit of public Service. : How then can the service, or the Liturgy in Latin be said absolutely to be in an unknown tongue which the most part (besides women) in some sort understand? Moreover the prayers which S. Paul speaketh of were extemporal, made in public meetings, according to the devotion of the speaker. Therefore it was necessary that he should pray in a known language, that those who heard him might know when to say Amen, and whether the prayer for matter was such as they might lawfully say Amen thereunto. But now the service and Liturgy of the Church hath set offices for every festival day approved by the Church, which by continual use are made so known, & so vulgar unto common people, as no man is so ignorant that using diligence or attention may not in short time come to understand them. And hereunto serve Exhortations, Sermons, Catechisms, private Instructions, manuals & Primers in vulgar Languages, where the prayers used for the Church are found, which show that the Latin service cannot be unknown to any that will use diligence to understand it; neither can any doubt, but that he may lawfully say Amen unto it 
(a) The Minister pag. 369. & 377. argueth in this manner: That is forbidden by the Apostle to be used in prayer whereby all sorts of people being of ripe years may not be edified in their understanding, & to which they are not able to say Amen having some distinct understanding of the things spoken. Answer. First not only the learned, but also the unlearned have or may have some distinct knowledge of the set Offices of the Church, of the prayers, Gospels, and Epistles read, and other devotions said in secret, they being so often and yearly repeated, yea some for the most part daily. Secondly, it is false, that the Apostle doth prohibit all prayer that doth not edify the understanding. For though the Apostle prefer prayer that doth edify the understanding, yet doth he not prohibit prayer of mere affection without new instruction of the understanding, but saith that in such prayers men pray with their spirit and affection, though not with their understanding. .  
Now that S. Paul did command that service should be in such a language as every woman in the Church might be able to understand it word by word 
(b) The Minister saith pag. 374. that Ignorance of the distinct notion of every word, hindereth not sufficient edification, when the ordinary necessary, and common passages of the public service are intelligible. Thus he. Now I subsume. But people who understand not latin distinctly may by instruction through books, Sermons, and catechisms understand the ordinary, necessary, and common passages of the public service, specially by the help of use and custom, as experience showeth. Ergo, public prayers in latin may yield sufficient edification, and so are lawful.  is incredible, nor are our Adversaries able to prove it; neither can they show by any Records of antiquity that such a custom was in the Primitive Church: yea the contrary may more than probably be showed, because the drift of the Church in appointing Liturgies, or set forms of public Prayer at the oblation of the Eucharistical sacrifice, was not for the 
(C) The Minister saith that indeed the end of public service is not to instruct People, yet the prayers must be said in a language understood of all, because they which come to God with sound of words, without understanding, offer the sacrifice of fools. Answer. He that offereth unto God vocal prayers full of devout & pious affection, knowing only in general that they be pious devout & expressing such affections, offers a grateful sacrifice unto God, though he do not distinctly understand the words and parts of the Prayer. For example, if one that understands not Latin believe the Psalm Miserere to be full of penitent affections, and say the same with many tears of inward sorrow & contrition for his sins, whosoever will say that this man offers unto God the sacrifice of fools, is himself an Infidel, or Foole. For what greater folly then to think that prayers of pious affection please not God, except the affection correspond mathematically to the words?  people's instruction, but for other reasons. First, that by this public Service a continual daily tribute or homage of prayer & thanksgiving might be publicly offered and paid unto God. Secondly, that christians by their personal assistance at this public service might protest, & exercise exteriorly acts of Religion common with the whole Church, represented by the Synaxis, or Ecclesiastical meeting of every Christian parish. Finally, to the end that every Christian by his presence, yielding consent unto the public prayers, praises and thanksgivings of the Church, and as it were subscribing & setting his seal unto them by this assisting at them, might ordinarily participate of the graces, benefits & fruits which the Church doth obtain by her Liturgyes and public oblations. Now, for this end there is no need, that every one should understand word by word the prayers that are said in the public Liturgy, but it sufficeth that the Church in general, and in particular Pastors and Ecclesiastical persons dedicated unto the Ministeryes of the Church, and who watch, being bound to give an account of souls committed to their charge, have particular notice of all the prayers that are said, and that all who will may be taught & instructed in particular, if they will use diligence & desire it.  
Moreover the Churches anciently even in the purest times of Christianity, had Chancels unto which Laymen might not enter, & so could not particularly and distinctly understand 
(c) It had been folly for the Church, intending her Liturgy for the instruction of lay-men, to have excluded them out of the chancels: and though our Adversary say, that the Priest read service in so audible a voice, as he might be heard from the highest of the Chancel where the Altar was placed, unto the body of Church; yet this he might better have spoken unto fools, then unto men of understanding, that know how great the chancels of many Churches are, and how fare distinctly audible a man's voice ordinarily is.  the prayers said by the public Minister of the Church. Within the said chancels they did also use to say a good part of the Liturgy 
(d) Vide Liturgias impressas anno Domini 1568. Basil. in Liturg. fol. 34.  secretly, so that their voice was not audible unto any. Yea the Greek Church did anciently use a Veil 
(e) Basil. ibidem fol. 34.38.41.43.46. & Chrysostom. Liturg. fol. 55. & hom. 61. ad Pop.  wherewith the Priest was for the times of the sacred Oblation compassed, which are manifest signs, that the Church did never think it necessary that all the public Liturgy should be heard, much less word by word understood by the whole vulgar multitude present thereat.  
Besides, it is certain that the Scripture was not read in any language but Greek over all the Churches of the East, as S. Hierome 
(f) Hieron. praefat. in Paralip.  witnesseth. Also the Greek Liturgy of Saint Basill was used in all the Church of the East, and the Grecian was not the vulgar language of all the Countries of the East, as is apparent by manifest testimonies, particularly of the 
(g) Basil. de Spiritu sancto c. 19  Cappadocians, 
(h.i) Hieron. in Prooem. 2. lib. come. ad Galat. & Act. Apost. c. 1. v. 10. & 11.  Mesopotamians, 
(h.i) Hieron. in Prooem. 2. lib. come. ad Galat. & Act. Apost. c. 1. v. 10. & 11.  Galathians, 
(k) Theodoret. in histor. SS. Patrum hist. 13.  Lycaonians, 
(l) Hieron. de script. Eccles. in Anton.  Egyptians, Syrians; yea that all these Countries and most of the Orient had their proper language distinct from the Greek is manifest out of the Acts of the Apostles. No less manifest is it that the Latin Liturgy was common anciently for all the Churches of the Western parts, even in Africa, as appeareth by testimonies of S. 
(*) August. Epist. 57 de doctrine. Christian. l. 2. c. 13. August. in Psalm. 123. & in exposit. Ep. ad Rom. & epist. 173.  Augustine. But it is manifest that the Latin was not the vulgar language for all nations of the West; and though the better sort understood it, yet some of the 
(m) Although the Fathers say that the Greek Liturgy & translation did serve all Asia, and the East: Although likewise they affirm the same of the Latin for all Africa and the Occident, yet our Minister saith to the contrary pa. 379. and 380. that all people had their Liturgyes in their native tongue, which he proveth, because the people did then praise God in all languages, and did pray, according to S. justine and Tertullian, together with the Priest. Ergo, the public Liturgy was read in the Church in all vulgar tongues. As his denying what so many Fathers affirm is impudent, so his arguing is frivolous, as every man may see. For Catholics praise God in all languages, and meet to pray with Priests as much as Protestants, & yet our public service is not said in all vulgar tongues. More impertinent are his allegations of Fathers, speaking against distraction of mind, & men's not hearing themselues in prayer. As though men could not be recollected in prayer by attention unto God, unto their own needs, and the substance of their prayers, though they do not understand them distinctly word by word.  vulgar multitude only knew their own mother tongue, as may be clearly gathered out of the same Saint Augustin, who writes that he pleading in Latin against Crispinus a Bishop of the Donatists for possession of a village in Africa, whereunto the consent of the Villagers was required, they did not understand his speech till the same was interpreted unto them in their vulgar African language. So that the Christian Church did never judge it requisite, that the public Liturgy should be commonly turned into the mother language of every nation, nor necessary that the same should presently be understood word by word by every one of the vulgar assistants, neither doth the end of the public Service require it.  
As for the comfort that some few want, in that they do not so perfectly understand the particulars of divine Service, it may by other means abundantly be supplied without turning the public Liturgyes into innumerable vulgar languages, which would bring a great confusion into the Christian Church. First, The Church should not be able to judge of the Liturgy of every country when differences arise about the Translation thereof. So diverse errors & heresies might creep into particular countries, and the whole Church never able to take notice of them. Secondly, particular countries could not be certain, that they have the Scripture truly translated, for thereof they can have no other assured proof, but only the Church's approbation, nor can she approve what she doth not understand. Thirdly, were vulgar Translations so many as there be languages in the world, it could not be otherways, but some would be in many places ridiculous, incongruous, & full of mistaking, to the great prejudice of souls, specially in languages that have no great extents, nor many learned men that naturally speak them. Fourthly the liturgy would be often changed, together with the language, which doth much altar in every age. Fiftly, in the same Country by reason of different dialects, some Provinces understand not one another. And in the Island of japonia, (as some writ) there is one language for Noble men, another for Rustics, another for men, another for women; Into what language should then the japonian Liturgy be turned? Finally, by this vulgar use of the Liturgy the study of the learned languages, would be given over, & in short time come to be extinct, as we see that no ancient language now remains in humane knowledge, but such as have been (as it were) incorporated in the Liturgyes of the Church; & the common use of learned tongues being extinct, there would follow want of means for Christians to meet in General Counsels to communicate one with another in matters of faith. In a word extreme Barbarism would be brought upon the world.  
Private prayers 
(n) The Minister having nothing to say, raileth & boasteth that the opposition of Protestants, forsooth, hath brought us to allow private vulgar prayers by force, as we translate Scripture; & that were our kingdom as absolute as ever, we would return to our Centre. Thus he Prophesieth, but so, as he may easily be proved a false Prophet. For (to omit that diverse Counsels many ages before Luther was borne, command the knowing of the Pater, Aue, and Creed in the vulgar tongue) where is the Pope's kingdom more absolute, or Protestancy less known then in Italy and in Spain? And yet no where are prayers in the vulgar tongue more used then in Italy and Spain. You shall hardly there find one woman, one Layman which sayeth not their private devotions in the vulgar. Whereas thousands in Germany, Low countries, Polony, England both men and women, love to say their prayers rather in Latin, to show their opposition against Protestants that fond condemn such prayers, & be so void of judgement as to think that pious thoughts and affections upon the Pater noster please not God, except we understand the words, and measure our pious thoughts and affections Geometrically unto the same: so that a woman saying with much devotion Pater noster, if perchance she think that Pater signify our, and Noster Father, her prayer is marred. Wherefore your Protestant imprudent opposition is the cause that many pray in Latin, which otherwise perchance would not.  for ignorant people in their vulgar languages we practise, we allow; yea the Pater Noster, and the Creed, are to be known of all in their Mother tongues, which two forms contain the whole substance of prayer. For the end of Prayer being threefold, To praise God for his infinite perfections, To give him thanks for his benefits bestowed upon us, To demand of him such necessaries as we want, aswell for the maintaining of this present, as for the attaining unto eternal life; the Creed being a Sum of the perfections of God, & his benefits towards man, affoards sufficient knowledge to comply with the two former ends of prayer. The Pater Noster, being an abridgement of all those things which we need, contains a full instruction for the third. Other prayers do but more plainly express things contained in the Pater Noster, & the Creed, and our many books do show, that these kind of prayers in vulgar languages are by us written, esteemed, practised. We add that ordinarily speaking, common people do more profit by saying prayers in their mother tongue then in the Latin, because not only their affections are moved to piety, but also their understanding edified with knowledge. Notwithstanding some prayers though translated into English be so difficile to be understood as they will rather distract ignorant, especially curious people, then instruct them, of which kind are many Psalms of David, & these prayers (as we think) may more profitably be said in Latin. So that I see no great difference either in practice or in doctrine between Protestants & the Roman Church, concerning private Prayers in a language unknown.   

THE FIFTH POINT  
Repetitions of Pater Nosters, Aves, and Creeds, especially affixing a kind of merit to the number of them.  
I AM persuaded that your Majesty doth not intent to dislike Repetition of Prayers, so the same be done with reverend Devotion and Affection. For this repetition is justified, not only by the example of the blind man, who still cried upon our Saviour, with repetition of the same prayer, 
(p) Math. 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 18.  jesu Fili Dauid miserere mei, by which repetition he obtained his sight; nor only of the princely Prophet, who in his 135. Psalm repeats 27. times, Quoniam in aeternum misericordia eius; nor only of the 
(q) Isa. 6.6.  Seraphims, who in praising their Creator repeat three times over the same word, holy, holy, holy: but also by the example of our Blessed Saviour himself, who thrice (at least) in the garden repeated the same prayer, 
(r) Matth. 26. v. 4. Marc. 14. v. 39 Eumdem sermonem dicens. Luc. 22. v. 42.  Pater, si fieri potest, transeat à me Calix, verumtamen non mea voluntas, sed tua fiat.  
Wherefore to repeat the same prayers is very good and pious, so the same be done with new devotion; which new devotion that it may not be wanting in our Repetitions, there is appointed for every Pater, Aue, & Creed, a special meditation, that may stir up devotion at every repeated prayer. And seeing we cannot pray long but we must needs repeat over the Pater noster in sense, (for what can we demand of God that is not there contained?) why may we not also repeat the same in words? If any think to merit by reason of the number of his prayers, he is ignorant of the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which attributes 
(s) The Minister pag. 385. writeth in this sort: I grant repetitions in prayer, and thanksgivings which agree with the examples of Scripture to be pious and lawful; but the illation from these to the Roman Battalogy is inconsequent. First, their prayers are in part directed to Creatures. Secondly, they are multiplied to an excessive and portentous number. Thirdly, the Creed is no prayer or thanksgiving formally or virtually. Fourthly, they think praying without understanding the words, without present actual attention, to be pious and effectual. Answer. To avoid the shame of not being able to reply something, at least in show, you run directly upon his Majesty & disgrace his questions. His Majesty proceeding most judiciously, knowing the Pater noster to be pious devotion; first questioned the Aue Maria, or praying unto Saints, & also praying in an unknown tongue, & then supposing by way of argument, that the saying of Pater's Aves & Creeds is pious, he doubts about repetition of them in certain numbers, as judging repetition even of pious and Godly prayers, in a fixed number, to be questionable, specially affixing merit unto the number. You convinced by the jesuit, grant repetition of pious prayers in certain numbers to be pious, and so have granted what his Majesty questioned; & yet not to seem to grant it, you make his Majesties' question to be, whether repetition of unlawful prayers in an excessive number, without attention, be lawful? Which question is unworthy of his Majesties' judgement; yea his Majesty seeing the impertinency of this question did first move doubt about the lawfulness of Invocation of Saints, that the lawfulness thereof might be supposed in this question, knowing the question without this supposition to be senseless & foolish. Secondly, according to your reply, his Majesty doth not dislike our saying 33. Pater nosters, in memory of 33. years our Saviour lived upon earth, affixing merit unto that number. For neither is the number excessive, nor the prayer unlawful, nor is there any amongst us that doth not understand the sense thereof. And yet I think his Majesty was not of this mind, which showeth that he questioned repetition of pious prayers in a fixed number, and so your Reply grants what he questioned. Thirdly, the Aue Maria is not a prayer directed unto any Creature, as prayer signify petition of grace and favour, because in the Aue Maria we ask not grace, nor any gift of the B. Virgin, but only that she will pray for us, Holy marry pray for us, now and in the hour of death. If petition made unto Creatures that they will be comprecants with us, be prayer directed unto Creatures; then is craving the comprecation of living Saints, prayer finally directed unto a Creature. Fourthly, your saying that the Creed is no prayer neither formally nor virtually, is the bare word of a Minister against the perpetual practice of the Christian Church, which used the Creed as a prayer a thousand years ago, defining it in Concil. Quinosexto Can. 7. Let every Christian pray, at the least twice a day, saying the CREED, or the Lord's Prayer, or, Qui plasmasti me miserere mei, or, Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori. Thus the Council. And who doth not see the Creed, said unto God with inward devotion of faith, about his divine perfections, and mercies toward mankind there declared, to be a prayer either of praise, or thanksgiving, or obsecration, according to the affection of him that prayeth. Finally, your Cavil that our prayers are said in a tongue unknown, and so without present attention, is in your supposition often false (seeing they that pray in these numbers most commonly either understand Latin, or else pray in the vulgar tongue) & in the illation ridiculous: For they that understand not the Pater, Aue, and Creed in Latin, may by memory know the substance thereof, and so be actually attended.  no merit to prayers in regard of their number, further than the number awakes in us devout thoughts, which is the only thing that by the number we aim at. We say Pater's, Aves, Creeds, to the number of three in memory of the Blessed Trinity, seeking God's favour and grace by glorifying that incomprehensible mystery. To the number of five, in memory of the five special wounds our Saviour received, that pierced into, & through his sacred body. To the number of 33. in remembrance of 33. years our Saviour wrought our Salvation upon earth, giving him thankes for all his labours, desiring the application of his merits, stirring up ourselves to the imitation of his virtues. The like reason moveth us to pray in the number of 63. Angelical salutations, to call to mind the years the Mother of God lived, according to one probable opinion. And because the opinion that she lived 72. years now gins to be much followed, many Catholics, particularly in Spain, have thereupon increased the crown of our B. Lady to 72. Aue Maria's: A manifest sign that they never attributed merit unto the number of 63. but only to the devout memory of the B. Virgin's virtues exercised in the years she conversed in this world, giving God thankes for his graces bestowed upon her. The Psalter of our Lady, & the jesus Psalter contain one hundred & fifty repetitions of prayers, the one of Aue Maria's, the other jesus, jesus, jesus, in imitation of the devout Royal Prophet, whose Psalter contains Psalms in God's praise, to the same number.  
Neither are we in this point of repeating prayers upon Beads, or little stones in a 
(t) The Minister saith, that his Majesty in his dislike of our affixing merit to the Repetition of prayers in a certain number, meant to deny the merit of condignity, not the merit of congruity or Impetration. I Answer. If you had studied of purpose to make his Majesty ridiculous in his proposition of questions, you could not have more fond sensed them. For his Majesty speaking of prayers, and denying merit unto the repeating of prayers, what (according to sense) could he mean, but the merit proper of prayers, which is to impetrate or obtain? And so the jesuit proving the special merit of Impetration, hath proved what his Majesty questioned. As for yourself, seeing you deny not that unto repetition of prayers special merit of Impetration is affixed, I do not doubt but you yield the very Doctrine his Majesty disliked, to wit, that repetition of prayers in a fixed number, hath special force and efficacy to impetrate.  certain number (for the causes before mentioned) destitute of the example of Saints, that lived in the best ages of the Church. Palladius in his history cap. 14. & 25. setteth down some examples of Saints praying in this kind. Yea the Century-writers Cent. 4. col. 1329. and Osiander, acknowledge the example of Saint Paul, a most holy Monk, living in the fourth age after Christ, that, In dies singulos trecentas orationes Deo velut tributum reddidit; ac ne per imprudentiam in numero erraret, trecentis lapillis in sinum coniectis, ad singulas preces singulos eiecit lapillos: consumptis igitur lapillis, constabat sibi orationes lapillis numero pares abs se expletas esse. Which example of so great a Saint, so known and notorious 
(u) The Minister answereth, that singular examples are no rule, for Ammonius being solicited to be a Bishop, cut of his own ear, & yet he is not imitable herein: so neither is S. Paul's example, in saying prayers upon Beads to be followed. I Answer. Some things are such of their own nature as they cannot be done lawfully and with out sin, but by special revelation, as the kill & maiming himself, in which kind examples in Scripture, or else where related, are admirable, not imitable. But when the thing used by some singular Saint, is not against any law of God or man, but a thing that may be done without special revelation, the same is imitable by all others in due circumstances. Now, what law divine or human, forbids a man to say three hundred prayers a day, one hundred to each of the three Divine Persons? Or what law doth prohibit him to use 300. little stones or beads, in numbering them, for help of Memory? Or why may we not help our memory in numbering our devotions, by calculation of Beads, if S. Paul's example be pious and laudable? If to say Prayers in a certain number upon beads be intrinsically evil, it cannot be done piously by the singular instinct of God's Spirit, seeing God can never inspire men to do any thing that is essentially evil. If it be not of itself essentially evil, why should Protestants forbid men to use such helps of our devotion? except they can show, an express positive Divine law in Scripture, against it. , and never censured by any Father, may more than abundantly suffice for satisfaction in a matter of no more moment than this. For we are not curious in this Point, nor do require of any man, that he say his prayers in a certain number, so that he may not say more or less, as his devotion serves him.   

THE SIXTH POINT.  
The doctrine of Transubstantiation.  
YOUR Excellent Majesty, submitting your judgement to God's express word doth firmly believe the body of Christ to be truly present in the most venerable Sacrament of the Altar; which doctrine doth naturally and necessarily infer whatsoever the Church of Rome holds as matter of Faith, concerning the manner of this Presence.  
To declare this, and together answer an Objection much urged by some Protestants, that they believe the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament, but are not bound by this, to believe the Manner, that not being expressed in Scripture: We must note, that men are bound firmly to believe the manner of a mystery revealed, when the same belongs to the substance thereof, so that rejecting the manner, we reject the belief of the substance of the mystery. This is evident, and may be declared by the example of the mystery of the Incarnation, the substance whereof is, that in Christ jesus the nature of God, and the nature of man are so united, that God is truly Man, & man verily God. The manner of this mystery is ineffable and incomprehensible, yet we are bound to believe three things concerning it; which if we deny, we deny the mystery in substance, howsoever we may retain the same in words. First, that this union is not only Metaphorical 
(a) Non affectualis unitas, sed secundum subsistentiam. Synodus 5. Generalis quae est Constantinop. 2. Can. 4.  by Affection, as two persons that are great friends may truly be said to be all one; but also true, and Real. Secondly, real Union of natures, is 
(b) Qui non confitetur Dei verbum substantialiter VNIRI carni, Anathema sit. Synod. Chal. act. 5. Synod. quinta General. can. 5.  substantial, and not accidental, so that thereby the nature is not only accidentally perfected by receiving excellent participations of the divine nature, power, wisdom, and Majesty, but also substantially, the very fullness of the Godhead, dwelling corporally and substantially in him. Thirdly, that this substantial Union, is not according to the Natures, so, that the nature of God, & the nature of man became one and the same nature, as Eutiches taught, but 
(c) Ex duabus naturis secundum substantiam unitis, unum & eumdem Christum qui non confitetur, condennatus est. Concil. Lateran. sub Martin. 1. Can. 6.  Hypostatical, whereby God and Man became one and the same person. These particulars about the manner of the Incarnation, though high, subtle, and incomprehensible to reason, Christians may, and must believe, because they belong to the substance of the Mystery, and are declared by the Church in general Counsels, though the vulgar be not bound explicitly to know them.  
In this sort we say, that the manner how our Saviour's Body is in the Sacrament of his last Supper, must be believed, & may not be denied as fare as it concerns the very life, being, and substance of the Mystery revealed. Which mystery in substance is, that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament in such sort, that the Priest minister thereof, demonstrating what seemeth bread, may truly say thereof in the person of Christ, This is my body. This supposed, as the substance of the mystery, I infer that two Catholic doctrines concerning the manner of this mystery, belong to the substance of this mystery, & cannot be called in question without danger of misbelief. First, the Real Presence of the whole body of Christ, under the forms of bread. Secondly, that this is done by Transubstantiation.  

An Addition proving the Catholic Real Presence, according to the literal Truth of God's Word; against Ministerial Metaphors, Figures, and Shifts.  
HIS Majesty in questioning only Transubstantiation, seemeth to suppose the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, under the Sacramental signs, and that the words of our Saviour, This is my body, be true in their proper and literal sense. This was the reason that the Answerer omitted to prove largely this Catholic Doctrine. Now the Minister finding himself unable upon this supposition of his Majesty to answer the jesuits arguments for Transubstantiation, yea Pag. 397. affirmeth, that unless Transubstantiation be granted, the words of our Saviour cannot be true in their proper and literal sense. Hence he denies the presence of the body of Christ Substantially within the sacred sign, & laboureth to prove, that the words of the Supper are figuratively, and not properly to be understood. He grants a Real, and True Presence of Christ's body in words, but so obscurely, as no man is able to understand his meaning.  
Wherefore to clear this matter, wherein Ministers desire to be dark, that men may not see the gross infidelity of their hart against God's express word, I shall show 3. things. First, what Zwinglians and Caluinists hold in this point. Secondly, how the Doctrine both of Zuinglius & Caluin is against God's word. Thirdly, that their reasons not to admit of the literal truth of Christ's word, be vain and idle.   

The Zuinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament. §. 1.  
A threefold presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, is confessed on all sides. The first, Figurative, or in a Sacramental sign, bread signifying his body, and wine his blood. The second, Imaginative, or by the pious apprehension of the faithful receiver, who for more devotions sake doth, or may imagine as if he saw the body of our Lord in the Eucharist truly, really, and bleedingly present, under the signs of bread and wine. The third, Effectual, or according to the Spiritual effects of grace purchased by the Body and Blood of our Saviour, and given by virtue of this Sacrament unto the soul, to nourish the ghostly life thereof.  
As all proceed thus fare, so Zwinglians will proceed no further. They grant the body and blood of Christ to be present in the Sacrament figuratively in a sign, imaginatively by faith, effectually by grace; but deny them to be present according to their corporal substance, or further then in the outward sign to the mouth, and in the inward effect to the soul. So that they grant the Sacramental sign to be bare and empty in respect of containing the body of Christ, though full and effectual in respect of affoarding soule-nourishing grace.  
Caluinists seem in their words to maintain a more real presence. For though they maintain the substance of the body of Christ in respect of place, to be in heaven only and not in the Sacrament, yet they teach that the same body without being present upon earth is given us on earth, not only by the apprehension of faith; Non solùm dum fide amplectimur jesum Christum pro nobis crucifixum, & à mortuis excitatum; Not only in the inward spiritual effects of soule-nourishing grace, purchased by the death of his body; Non solùm dum bonis eius omnibus quae nobis acquisivit corpore suo efficaciter communicamus, but realiter, really, & truly; Dum habitat in nobis, dum unum fit nobiscum, dum eius membra sumus de carne eius, dum in unam, ut ita loquar, cum ipso substantiam coalescimus. Caluin. in cap. 11.1. ad Cor.  
Hence we may discover the Caluinian juggling, and playing fast & lose about this Mystery, when they so often say that the body of Christ is really present, but Spiritually: for the word Spiritual may be used in this Mystery for two ends. First, to express the substance of the thing present, & to signify the real Presence, not of the corporal substance of our Lord's body, but only of the spiritual effect thereof, to wit, of soule-feeding grace. This sense is false, as shall be proved, and the very same which Caluin doth condemn in the Zwinglians, as execrable blasphemy, opusculo de Coena Domini. Secondly, to express the manner of the Presence, and to signify that the corporal substance of our Lord is present truly, yet in a spiritual, that is, secret, invisible, & indivisible manner; this doctrine is true, and herein not differing from the Catholic. In like manner their Phrase of Presence by Faith is equivocal, and may have a threefold sense. First, Presence by Faith, may signify Presence by pious imagination of Faith, the Receiver conceiving the body of our Lord, as if he saw the same corporally and bleedingly present. If by Presence by faith, Caluinists mean no more than this, than they do not differ from the Zwinglians, nor do they put any more real presence then imaginative, that is, presence of things according to pious representation and apprehension, though not really & in truth. Secondly, Presence by Faith may signify, that Faith, doth dispose and prepare the soul, and that then, unto the soul prepared by Faith our Saviour is united really and truly, not according to the corporal substance of his body, but only according to the spiritual effect of his grace. This sense is also Zuinglian, and condemned by Caluin, as hath been showed. Thirdly, Presence by Faith, may signify, presence according to the judgement of Faith, or a presence which only Faith can find out, feel, & behold. This sense is true, and Catholic, and doth suppose the body of Christ to be present absolutely, and independently of Faith. For were not the body of Christ afore hand present, Faith should not be true, that judgeth his body to be present.  
Whether our Minister be Zuinglian or Caluinist in this point, God only knows, he speaks obscurely of purpose. He never saith as Caluin doth li. 4. Institut. c. 17. n. 7. That by substantial communication the body and blood of Christ are under the signs of the supper delivered unto the faith full, yet he saith and often repeats, that the body of Christ is truly, really, & effectually communicated. These words savour more of the Caluinian then of the Zuinglian phrase. Notwithstanding his adding effectually, after truly and really may draw the speech to be Zuinglian in sense, to wit, that the body of Christ is given truly really effectually, that is, really according to the truth and reality of the Spiritual effect, not really according to the truth and reality of the corporal substance.   

The Zuinglian and Caluinian Presence confuted. §. 2.  
THE Zuinglian doctrine that the body of Christ is present only in an effectual sign of grace, not in substance, is against the plain & express words of our Saviour. For he did not say this is the sign or figure of my body, nor this is the benefit or effect of my body, but, this is my body, and consequently it is his body in substance and essence, if the substantial Verb Est, do signify substance and essence. Hence Luther (Epist. ad Argent.) saith, that the words are nimis clara, toto clear, and much more clear than he could have wished. Caluin also in cap. 11.1. ad Cor. I hear (saith he) what the words of the supper import. For Christ doth give us not only the benefit of his death and resurrection, but also the very body wherein he died, and arose again from death. Yea libro de Coena, inter eius opuscula pag. 133. he saith, that, Negare veram corporis & sanguinis substantiam, to deny the true substance of the body and blood of Christ to be given in the supper, is execrabilis blasphemia, auditu indigna, an execrable blasphemy against which we ought to stop our ears.  
The Caluinian Doctrine, that Christ's body being only in heaven is Spiritually present, not only by faith, not only according to the effects of his grace, but also in his bodily substance, yet only unto the faithful receiver, not unto the Sacramental sign, is both against God's word, and implicatory in reason. First, it is no less than the Zuinglian against the plain & express words of our Saviour. For our Saviour by saying, Take, eat, this is my body; drink ye all of this, for this is my blood (Matth. 26.) doth aver the Sacrament to be his body and blood, in respect of that taking and eating, unto which by these words he doth invite and exhort. But by this speech he doth invite, and exhort unto Sacramental and corporal taking and eating. This appeareth by the immediate practice of the Apostles, who upon these words of our Lord took the Sacrament with their corporal mouth. This also our adversary's cannot deny, seeing they urge by virtue of these words corporal receiving in both kinds. Therefore the words of our Saviour aver the real presence of his body in substance in respect of corporal taking and eating with the mouth of flesh, which Doctrine Caluinists stiffly deny, only holding the substantial communication of Christ's body, in respect of spiritual receiving by the faculties of the soul.  
Secondly, their Real Presence is a fiction to no purpose. For there is no reason to put the Real Presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, but only in respect of verifying the word of our Saviour, This is my body, in a true, and real sense, so making the thing Christ had in his hand, and which was demonstrated by the pronoun This, to be truly & really his body. But Caluinists put not a Presence, which maketh the thing Christ had in hand, and demonstrated by the pronoun This, to be truly and really his body, but only by figure. This I prove. That which is the body of Christ in figure and show, and not in substance, is not truly, & really Christ his body. Even as what is a man in show and figure not in essence and substance, is not truly and really a man. But Caluinists say that This, or the thing which Christ hath in his hands, was Christ's body in show & figure, and not in substance. Ergo, they put not a Real presence which makes that which Christ had in his hand, & did demonstrate by the particle This, to be truly his body. It is therefore a fiction devised to satisfy the Caluinian fancy, not the Christian faith, or the rigurous truth of God's word.  
Thirdly, by this Doctrine they bind themselves and others to believe an high and incomprehensible Mystery, without any necessity or compulsion from God's word. For what can be more unintelligible, then that there should be true and real union according to substance, betwixt two distinct individual substances, that be distant the one from the other, as fare as heaven is from earth. Hence Caluin saith libro de Coena, that this is sublime & arduum, quod neque quidem cogitatione complecti possimus. & in Cap. 11.1. ad Cor. arcanum & mirificum Spiritus sancti opus, quod intelligentiae nostrae modulo metiri nefas sit. But the word of God doth not enforce this Caluinian Mystery, nor is there sufficient ground to affirm it. This is proved, because the mystery of their Real Presence either hath no ground in Scripture, or is grounded on these words of the Institution Take eat, this is my body. But Caluinists on these words cannot ground the incomprehensible mystery of their real presence: For they understand these words of our Saviour in a Figurative sense, and say, that they are not true properly, and literally. Now a mystery of Faith cannot be grounded upon the Figurative sense of a place of Scripture, yea upon mere Figurative construction of Scripture, to obtrude unto others an article of necessary belief, is impudence, as saith S. Augustine Epist. 68 Non nisi impudentiss mè nititur quis aliquid in Allegoria positum pro se interpretari, nisi habeat & manifesta testimonia, quorum lumine illustrentur obscura. Therefore the Caluinian Real Presence is a mystery incomprehensible, grounded on mere figurative construction of God's word, not backed by any literal text, and consequently it is believed without necessity, or any Divine and supernatural warrant.  
Hence I Infer two things: first, that the believers of the Caluinian Real Presence are unwise. For what greater folly then for men to deny their wits, and break their heads, to believe an hard and difficile matter, in believing whereof there is no merit of faith? In believing the Caluinian Real Presence there is no merit of Faith: For the merit of Faith is to captivated our Understanding unto mysteries, clearly delivered by the word of God, not unto man's figurative expositions thereof, yea no figurative exposition above reason is to be believed, except it be proved by some literal text, or be delivered by the full Tradition as God's word unwritten.  
Secondly I infer, that Caluinists bear more reverence unto john Caluin, then unto jesus Christ: for Caluins' mystery is believed by Caluinists being confessedly a Doctrine most hard, difficile, incomprehensible, and yet not the literal sense of God's word, but Caluins figurative comment thereupon: On the other side, Transubstantiation being acknowledged by them to be the literal and proper sense of the word of Christ jesus, so that without Transubstantiation, his word, this is my body, cannot be literally true, as our Minister doth confess pag. 397. yet because it is hard, difficile, incomprehensible, Caluinists cannot be brought to believe it. What is this but to be more ready to believe Caluin then Christ? Specially seeing the mystery of Christ's literal sense is not so hard and un-intelligible as Caluins' figurative construction. For one may more easily conceive a body to be in two places at once, which the literal sense of Christ's word doth enforce, than a body to be truly and substantially given, where truly and substantially it is not, which is the article of faith by Caluins figurative construction obtruded.   

The Arguments against the literal sense of Christ's Word, vain and idle. §. 3.  
THE Minister to prove that the words of the institution are to be figuratively understood, bringeth seven Arguments pag. 391. & one pag. 401. and three other pag. 418. but the first and third of these three are the same with the second & last of the seven, so that his arguments are Nine in all. These being the sum and substance of all his disputation, I will here set them down & answer them, one by one, that the Reader may see upon what frivolous reasons these men are moved to reject the literal sense of God's word, concerning the highest mysteries of Faith.  

His first Argument, pag. 397.  
If the substance of bread and wine do remain, Christ's speech, This is my body, This is my blood, cannot be properly true, because one individual substance cannot be predicated of another properly. But it shall be afterward by Fathers and Scriptures proved, that the substance of bread and wine remains.  

ANSWER.  
You will prove the substance of bread, to remain in the holy Eucharist, ad Kalendas Graecas; the mean while, out of what you here confess, I argue against you. You grant that, except Transubstantiation be maintained, the words of Christ, This is my body, cannot be true in the literal sense. But they must be understood in the literal sense, for on these words the Church of God doth ground a chief mystery or Sacrament of Faith. But (as hath been proved) no figurative text can be the ground of our belief concerning any Sacrament, or mystery of Faith.    

The second Argument, pag. 397.  
The words whereby the wine is consecrated, Luc. 22.20. are Tropical, by the confession of our Adversaries.  

ANSWER.  
First it is not absurd that our Saviour delivering some precept, article, or Sacrament, should use words that are figurative and exorbitant, according to the rules of Grammar, if they be not figurative nor unusual, but ordinary, plain, manifest, perspicuous, according to the common phrase and vulgar manner of speech. This speech, This is the cup of my blood which is shed for you, if it be figurative according to Grammar, yet is it plain, easy, & clear according to common speech; for no man hearing these words This is the cup of my blood shed for you, can think, that the cup, and not the blood contained therein, was shed for us.  
Secondly, I deny that any word of this speech, This is the cup of the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you, is figurative. This is the cup of my blood, is not figurative, seeing Christ had in his hand a true cup, not the figure of a cup, and the thing contained therein was truly and properly blood. The blood of Christ is also truly and properly said to be the new Testament, for it is the thing required by the new Testament, & Covenant for the remission of sins; but commonly and vulgarly men say of the thing required by Covenant, this is our Covenant. Finally, the cup in his blood is properly said to be shed, seeing the blood was truly and properly shed, & so the cup properly shed in that respect, as to say of a cup of wine, this cup is spilt in the wine thereof, is not figurative, but rather a speech unnecessarily plain.    

The third Argument, pag. 397.  
If the words be taken properly, than the body and blood of Christ is delivered and received without the soul and Deity of Christ, for in propriety of speech the Body is a distinct and divers thing from the soul, and likewise from Blood.  

ANSWER.  
Thousand instances might be brought that show your gross Ignorance in Theology who thus argue. For example, the Gospel john 1.10. saith, the Word was made flesh. Is this Argument good, Flesh, in the propriety of speech, is a distinct and divers thing from blood and from soul, Ergo, either these words be figurative, and do not prove that the word took substantially Flesh, or else we must say that he took dead flesh without blood & soul? S. Peter saith, that Christ did bear our sins in his body upon the wood, were he not simple that would argue as you do, Body in propriety of speech is a thing distinct from the soul, and from the Godhead; Therefore either the words are figurative, and do not prove that Christ did truly suffer in body, or else we must say that his body without soul, and without his Deity suffered on the Crosse. Not so: For though the body be a thing distinct and divers from the soul, yet it is a thing united and joined with the soul, when the person liveth, and so the body of a living person cannot be given except the soul be given consequently, or by concomitancy therewith. Ordinary Philosophy might have taught you this, where it is commonly said, that though the Body be distinct from the Soul, yet cannot the body be moved or removed, delivered and received without the soul, the same going from place to place, per accidens cum corpore, by concomitancy together with the body.    

The fourth Argument, pag. 397.  
Seing Christ, as Saint Hierome, Saint Chrysostome, and Euthimius affirm, did himself Sacramentally eat and drink what he gave to his disciples, if the words be literally understood, than he did eat his own body, and drink his own blood.  

ANSWER.  
You would have us believe, that it is ridiculous and foolish to say, that Christ did eat his own body, which yet you durst not utter in plain words: For if Christ (as you affirm) did eat what he gave to his disciples, either he did eat his own body, or else his word in rigour is false, whereby he said of what he gave to his disciples, Take eat, This is my body. Hence the Fathers, who affirm that Christ did eat what he gave, affirm that Christ did eat what he gave his Apostles, consequently enforced by the evidence of God's word expressly aver, that he did eat his own body, as Saint Hierome ad Hedib. q. 2. Christ in his supper was the eater, & the meat that was eaten. Saint Chrysostome homil. 83. in Matth. That the Apostles might not fear to do the same, Christ himself first drank his own blood. Yea S. Augustine Contion. 1. in Psalm. 33. saith, that Christ in his last supper carried himself in his own hands, secundum literam, according to the letter, which David neither did, nor possibly could do.    

The fifth Argument, pag. 398.  
If the words be understood literally, than Christ gave his Disciples his passable and mortal body. But I trow no jesuit will maintain, that a body mortal and passable can be in many hosts, or mouths at once, nor can the same be corporally eaten, without sensible touching.  

ANSWER.  
You might truly have said, I trow no Caluinist will believe that a mortal and passable body can be in two hosts or mouths at once, let the word of God say it never so expressly, and even as expressly as these words import, Take, eat, this is my Body, which shall be delivered for many unto death, which shall be broken for you on the Crosse. If Christ gave his body that was to suffer and dye, he gave his body that was then passable & mortal in many hosts at once, unto the mouths of the twelve. Now this being the plain express and literal truth of the word of jesus, what reason could you have, to trow, as you do, that no jesuit will maintain it? What jesuit can you name of so many that have written of this matter, that doth not expressly maintain, that Christ in his supper gave his mortal and passable body, though after an immortal and impassable manner? Hence though in the host his body could neither be sensibly felt, nor suffer, yet otherwise the same might then suffer in the place where it did exist, according to the natural and proper manner of bodies. See Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 12. Suarez, Vasquez, Valentia, and innurable others.    

The sixth Argument, pag. 398.  
If our Saviour's words be literally expounded, than Infidels, dogs, and swine, may eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man. But all that eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Son of man, have everlasting life. john. 6.49.50.51.  

ANSWER.  
I wonder you dare with such toys oppose the literal truth of God's word. You may see the idleness of this your argument in the like. S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 12.3. None can say Lord jesus, but in the Holy Ghost: Should one argue that these words are not properly to be understood, because Parrots may be taught to say Lord jesus, & so if these words, None can say Lord jesus but in the holy Ghost, be properly expounded, than Parrots should be inspired with the holy Ghost. Were not this disputant to be laughed at? Are you a Doctor, and do not understand that external actions unto which divine promises are made, must be not only humane proceeding from man as he is man, that is from reason and freewill, which cannot be ●n dogs and swine; but also Christian, that is proceeding from devotion & ●ayth in Christ jesus, which is wanting in Infidels?    

The seaventh Argument, pag. 398.  
If our Saviour's words were literal, plain, and regular, than Papists could not be di●●racted about the sense thereof: but they are notoriously divided. For some say the Pro●owne (this) signifieth nothing; others say it signifieth bread; some say, it signifieth ●●e accidents of bread; others it signifieth the body of Christ etc. Touching the body, ●●me say it is materia prima etc.  

ANSWER.  
This argument proves nothing but your Ignorance, who know not ●ow to distinguish division about the sense of a speech, from division a●out the Logical resolution of the single words of a speech. All know ●hat have any learning, that learned men are divided about the Logical resolution of many propositions vulgar and plain, about the sense whereof there neither is, nor can be doubt. This speech, Peter is a man, A man runneth, The wall is white, are most plain, nor are men divided about their sense. And yet he deserves not the name of a Scholar that doth not ●now there be solemn dissensions in Logic amongst learned men, a●out the resolution of these speeches, that is, about the precise and punctual signification of every single word.  
All Divines agree in the sense of Christ's speech, This is my body, that it imports, the thing he held in his hands, was in the end of the prolation of his speech, essentially & substantially his body, as the substantive verb Es● doth import. But they dispute about the Logical, and precise signification of the single words, what is designed punctually by the demonstrative pronoun this, what by Body, which are mere Logical and Philosophical subtleties, common to all propositions where the same words are used. So that to mention these differences as matters of moment, is a manifest sign that Heretical Ignorance being out of love with the literal sense of God's word, & resolved not to believe it, seeks the veil of every idle pretence to hide the Infidelity of his hart.    

The eight Argument, pag. 413.  
If the said words be understood literally, than the body of Christ is properly broke● and his blood properly shed in the Eucharist, for Saint Paul saith, This is my body which is broken for you, 1. Cor. 11.24. Saint Luke saith, This is the Cup the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you. But the body of Christ is not properly broken, nor his blood properly shed in the holy Eucharist.  

ANSWER.  
The word of God doth not say, that the body of Christ is broken & his blood shed in the Eucharist, but only that the Eucharist is his body which is broken & his blood which is shed for us, for many, for the remission of sins. Caluin c. 11.1. ad Cor. doth expound broken and shed for us on the Cross, where Christ's precious blood was properly shed, his sacred body broken in the flesh, and veins thereof which were there rend into pieces. Besides to be broken for us, and shed for the remission of sins, in this place signify to be sacrificed for us unto God, as Caluin saith in the former place frangi interpretor immolari. In which sense the body of Christ is broken properly, not only on the Cross, but also in the Sacrament, this being a true Propitiatory Sacrifice, as Catholics teach. Now take what part you will, let the Sacrament be the body & blood of CHRIST broken and shed for us, that is sacrifyced for us on the Cross, or broken and shed, that is sacrifyced for us in the Eucharist, still it follows that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of our Lord, & not bread and wine, seeing Christ neither in his Supper, nor on his Cross did sacrifice bread and wine, for the remission of sins, but his body and blood only.    

The ninth Argument, pag. 401.  
Many Fathers treating of the Sacramental signs, call them, figures, representations, memorials, antitypes of the body and blood of Christ. But that which is a figure, similitude, representation of a thing, is not properly the same.  

ANSWER.  
First the Mayor proposition of your Argument is false. For not one Father of the many you cite doth say, that the Eucharist is the figure of the natural body and blood of Christ, but all they say, is; First, that the Eucharist is a figure, memorial, and antytype of Christ's passion and death. So S. Aug l. 3. de doctrine. Christ. c. 16. Secondly, that it is a figure of his mystical body and of the unity thereof, Origen in c. 15. Matth. Aug. in Psal 3. Thirdly, the bread and wine before consecration be figures of his body & blood, as S. Ambros. l 4. de Sacram. c. 5. Druthmarus in c. 26. Matth. Fourthly, that Christ did in the Eucharist represent his body, where they take, representation, for the Real exhibition of the thing promised, as we commonly say, that the debtor on such a day is to represent the money, that is, real●y deliver, as Tertul. cont. Marci. l. 1. c. 14. glossa. de Consecrat. d. 2. Fiftly, they ●ay that the sacred vessels in the old law contained only a figure of the body and blood of Christ, as the Author of the Imperfect upon S. Mat●hew. Finally, for want of better testimonies you bring some that pro●esse against you, that the body and blood were given in the shape of ●read and wine, as Venerable Bede in c. 22. Luc. out of whom you cite ●hese words, substituting his body and blood in the FIGURE of bread and wine. What is this, but that the figure and shape of bread remains, the body of our Lord being present in lieu of the substance thereof?  
Secondly, your Minor assertion that the figure of a thing is not the ●ame with the thing figured, is impious and directly opposite unto God's word. First, Christ jesus is a figure of his Father's substance, Heb. 1.3. and yet is he the same substantially with the Father, john. 10.30. Secondly, S. Peter, fishing in the sea, and catching a great multitude of fish, is a figure of himself preaching in the world and converting souls unto Christ, Luc. ●. 10. and yet Peter fishing, and Peter preaching, is substantially the same person. Thirdly, Christ as found in the temple on the third day after his ●eesing, was a figure of himself rising after the third day of his sepulture, Ambros. in cap. 2. Lucae. Also Christ as making a show to go further in his journey to Emmaus, represented himself as mounting to heaven, August. count. mendac. c. 13. and yet Christ found after three days, and Christ rising after three days, Christ making a show to pass on, and ascending to his Father is substantially one, and the same person. False then and impious is your assertion, that the figure of a thing cannot be the same with the thing figured, and consequently this your Argument, The Eucharist is termed by the Fathers the figure of Christ's natural body; Ergo, it is not substantially, & properly his body, is idle. Hence the final conclusion is, that you have no ground in Scripture not to take these words of our Lord, This is my Body, in the literal sense, and that the true reason you do not literally understand them, is the difficulty of the matter, and the Infidelity of your hart. Now let us return unto the jesuits discourse.     

That the Real Presence of the whole Body of Christ, under the forms of bread, belongs to the substance of the Mystery. §. 1.  
TO prove this, I suppose as certain, that the body of Christ is truly and really in the Sacrament of his supper. This I may justly suppose, seeing your Majesty doth profess to hold a presence 
(d) Praesentian credimus non minùs quàm vos veram: haec fides Regis & Regia. Resp. ad Card. Peron. in oper. Regis pag. 399. & 400.  of the body of Christ in the Sacrament, no less true than we hold, and consequently you will not understand the words of Christ figuratively as Sacramentaryes do. For they make the body of Christ, present in the Eucharistical bread, but as in a figure, holding not a true, nor a real presence, but only a presence by Imagination & conceit, 
(*) This was supposed by the jesuit as clear, and hath been proved in the former addition against the Ministers Cavils.  as is evident; wherein (as your Majesty knows) they contradict the ancient Church, which teacheth expressly that Christ 
(e) Euthym. panop. pa. 2. tit. 22. Theop. in Marc. c. 14. Damascen. Orthod. fidei l. 4. c. 14.  did not say, This is a figure of my body, but, this is my body, and exhorts us to believe Christ upon his word. He said, This is my body, 
(f) Gaudent. tract. 2. in Exod. Chrysost. in c. 26. Matth. hom. 83. Ambros. de ijs, qui mysterijs ivitiant. c. 9 Epiph. in anchorato. Hilar. l. 8. de Trinit. Cyrill. Hieros'. Cateches. 4.  I pray you let us believe him whom we have believed, Verity cannot utter untruth. And herein they acknowledge with your Majesty, a most high and incomprehensible mystery, which were no mystery at all, the words being understood in a mere figurative sense.  
As for some places of Fathers brought to the contrary, how they are to be understood, your Majesty is not ignorant. S. Augustine 
(g) August. in Psal. 3. Idem cont. Adimant. c. 11.  saying, that Christ gave to his disciples a figure of his body and blood, spoke not of a bare empty figure, but of the figure of a thing really present. As likewise in another place when he saith, Christ affirmed it was his body, when he gave a sign of his body; though here he may seem to speak in the opinion of the Manichees who held that Christ had not true flesh, but a mere figure, shadow, and shape of flesh. Against whom in that place he undertakes to prove that the figure of a thing may be termed the thing itself, alleging, argumento ad hominem, that Christ said, This is my body when he gave but a figure of his body, to wit, 
(*) Had not S. Augustine argued in the opinion of Manichees that hold the flesh of Christ was not true, but only a figure of flesh, the Manichees might have denied this his example, seeing both the Gospel and the Fathers say the Eucharist to be truly Christ's body, and not a mere figure.  as you think.  
Tertullian 
(h) Tertul. li. 4. cont. Martion.  hath this speech: Christ taking bread into his hands, and distributing it to his disciples, made the same his body saying, Hoc est corpus meum, id est, figura corporis mei. Where figura corporis mei is referred not unto Corpus meum, as an explication thereof, but unto hoc, in this manner, hoc, id est, figura Corporis mei, est Corpus meum. This to be Tertullian his meaning, appears by the drift of his discourse in that place. For Tertullian is to show, that whereas in the old Testament bread was a figure of the body of Christ, as appears by the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius, id est, crucem in corpus eius; Christ in the new Testament made this figure to be truly and really 
(i) Tertullian in saying that Christ made bread his body, doth thereby declare the conversion of bread into his body, even as the Evangelist doth signify the conversion of water into wine, in saying, Our Saviour made water wine. john. 2.9.  his body, taking bread into his hands, saying, this, that is, the figure of my body in the old Testament, is my body truly and really in the new; which is as much as if he had said, Bread which anciently was a figure of my body, I do now make to be truly and really my body. And this is usual in Tertullian, who not to interrupt the words of Scripture, addeth his explication of the subject, not presently but after the Attribute 
(k) Tertul. contr. Praxeam c. 29. , as when he said, Christus mortuus est, id est, unctus; the sense whereof is Christus unctus mortuus est.  
This supposed, I infer that the body of Christ is present in the mystical supper, not only to the faithful that receive the Sacrament, nor only to the place, or church where the holy Synaxis is celebrated, but under the forms of bread in the very same place therewith. This manner of presence is clearly consequent upon the precedent, and that granted, this cannot be denied. For the reason upon which Christians hold the body of Christ to be really and truly present in the Sacrament, is, because they cannot otherwise in proper & plain sense verify the word of Christ, who said of bread, This is my body? Wherefore we must either put no Real Presence at all, or else put such a Real Presence as is able to verify the foresaid speech in proper and rigorous sense. But if the body of Christ be not in the same place with the consecrated bread, contained under the forms thereof, it cannot be said to be verily and really the body of Christ. For though we should suppose the body of Christ to leave heaven, & to be substantially present in the Church where the Sacrament is given, yet this supposed Presence would no ways further the verifying of the words of Christ, This is my body, except his body be veiled & covered with the sensible accidents of bread, so that it be demonstrated by them, & pointing unto them one may truly say, This is the body of Christ. For why should consecrated bread be termed truly and substantially the body of Christ, if his body be not so much as in the same place with 
(*) The Minister's folly who doth in this place affirm, that things distant may be truly & really united, is refuted in the Censure. Sect. 3. §. 5.  it? Wherefore the Fathers affirm that Christ is so in this Sacrament, as he is veiled with the semblances of bread. As Saint Cyrill of Jerusalem in his book highly commended by D. Whitaker, 
(l) Whitakerus de sacrae Scriptura q. 6. c. 11. Cyrill. Cathec. 4.  saith, Under the form of bread is given thee his body. Yea Master 
(m) Caluin. in ep. ad Cor. c. 11. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 32.  Caluin saith, In the supper CHRIST JESUS, to wit, his Body and Blood, is truly given, under the signs of bread & wine.  
Whence it is also consequent, that the whole body of Christ is contained under a consecrated host, be the same never so little. For, in this mystery the body of Christ is demonstrable by the sensible accidences, so that consecrated bread may be termed truly, really, and substantially the body of Christ, not a parcel or part thereof only. But were not the body of Christ wholly and entirely under the forms of bread, consecrated bread could not truly, & properly be termed the body of Christ but a sole part and parcel thereof. Again, we have no reason to believe that the body of CHRIST is truly, and really, in the Sacrament, but only to the end that it may in the Supper be truly, and really 
(n) Augustin. count. adversus Legis & Prophet. c. 9 Fidele cord & ore suscipimus Cyprian. de lapsis. Tertullian. lib. de resur. Caro corpore Christi vescitur. Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Nissen. orat. Cathec. Chrysost. homil 83. in 1. ad Cor. Leo serm. 6. de ieiunio 7. mensis.  eaten, to nourish, and feed men's souls. And if it be eaten only mentally by faith, we have no ground to think that it is present more then mentally by faith, this presence being ordained unto the manducation thereof; for else why did Christ institute this Sacrament under the elements of bread & wine? But if Christ be not present wholly and totally under the form of bread, he cannot be truly, and really eaten; why then is his body brought from heaven to be there really present? Or how can the body of Christ being coextended in place according to the natural dimensions thereof, enter into the mouth of the worthy receiver, yea in at the mouth of the 
(o) When some Fathers seem to say, that the wicked eat not Christ's body, they mean, they do not eat it fruitfully, or thrive in soul by the eating thereof. As we commonly say of men that thrive not by eating, that they do not eat their meat▪ as Beda super Exod. Infidelis carne Christi non vescitur. S. Cyrill, Hilary, Chrysostome, Origen, and others quoted by the Minister p. 407. speak not of mere corporal eating, but of eating by Faith and thus Infidels and wicked persons do not eat the body of Christ. S. Augustin. in joan. tract. 27. saying, that the wicked receive not rem Sacramenti, the thing of the Sacrament, by the thing of the Sacrament, meaneth grace, not the body of Christ. And tract. 59 saying, that judas did eat panem Domini, the bread of the Lord, non panem Dominum, not bread that was the Lord, he meaneth that judas in his own persuasion and faith did not eat the bread that was the Lord, yet he did eat the bread that was the Lord according to truth, & in the faith of the Church. judas (saith he Ep. 162.) took that which the FAITHFUL know to be the price of their Redemption.  wicked and unworthy receiver, as Fathers teach?  
Wherefore, seeing we must of necessity grant as I have proved, that some part of the body of Christ is under consecrated bread penetrating the same, & occupying the same place with it, why should we doubt to believe the whole body of Christ to be wholly, and totally, in every consecrated host? For if we can believe that two bodies be in the same place at once, we may as easily believe the same of twenty. And if we grant, that one part of Christ's body doth penetrate, that is, doth occupy the same room with the quantity of bread, why should we not think that the rest of his parts may also do the like? Our Saviour saith, Matth. 19 That it is more easy for a Camel to pass through a needle's eye, then for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of heaven, adding, though these things be impossible unto men, yet all is possible unto God. If then God can put a whole Camel into the eye of a needle, is not he able to put the whole body of Christ within the bigness of a consecrated host? The body of Christ, which being mortal & passable, could penetrate the body of his mother, & come out of her womb through the same, still remaining entire, as we profess in the Creed to believe, Natum de Maria Virgin; why may not the same body being now glorious, immortal, and as the Apostle speaks, spiritual, penetrate the quantity of bread, and enclose itself wholly, and entirely within the small compass thereof? Christ, that made heavy things not to weigh, as the body of Peter walking on the water Matth. 14.16. coloured things not to be seen, as his own person which he so oft made invisible to the jews; bright things not to shine, as his body after his Resurrection more bright than the Sun, did not shine in so many apparitions to his disciples; finally, a flaming furnace not to burn the bodies of the three children cast into the midst thereof: why may not he keep a body from occupying a place, or from extruding another body from the place where it is 
(p) Read S. Augustine de Ago Christiano c. 24. & serm. 160. who by these examples proveth that a body may penetrate with another, where he saith: Show me the weightiness of flesh in the body that walked upon the waves, and I will show the true massines and solidity of flesh in the body that came in the doors being shut, and was borne into the world without undoing his mother's integrity in his birth. ? For to occupy a place, or to extrude thence another body, is but an effect consequent, & flowing from the nature of a quantitive substance; as to weigh, to be seen, to shine, to burn, be the natural and necessary effects of heavy, coloured, bright, & fiery things.   

Transubstantiation belongs to the substance of Real Presence. §. 2.  
THIS I prove. That belongs to the substance of this Mystery, which being denied and taken away, the words of Christ This is my body, cannot be true taken in the literal sense, in which sense they are to be taken, as hath been showed. But without granting Transubstantiation the words of Christ cannot be true, taken in the literal sense, Ergo, transubstantiation belongs to the substance of this mystery of the Real presence. The minor is proved, because the speech, This is my body, doth signify that the thing the Priest holds in his hands is truly, really, and substantially the body of Christ. For in the proposition, This is my body, the verb Est signify a conjunction between This in the Priest's hands, & the body of Christ; and being a Verb substantive, in his proper signification, signify a substantial Identity between This in the Priest's hands, and the body of Christ. But This in the Priest's hands being before consecration bread, a thing substantially distinct from the body of Christ, cannot by consecration be made substantially the body of Christ (as the Fathers teach it is) without some substantial alteration, or change. And what other substantial change can make bread to become truly the body of Christ besides substantial conversion of the same into his body 
(q) 
The Minister flies unto the figurative sense, choosing rather to deny the truth of God's word according to the letter, then admit Transubstantiation. Against which he hath three arguments scattered in his Reply, which I will here join together and answer. The first is pa. 434. the consecrated bread is termed very bread, 1. Cor. 10.16. & 11.26.28. Answer. This is a very untruth. For it is still in those places, termed bread, cum addito, with such an addition as signifies that it is not properly bread, but our Saviour's body, 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread we break, that is Sacrifice unto God, is the communication of the body of our Lord. And 1. Cor. 11.26. as often as you eat THIS bread, & 27. Whosoever shall eat THIS bread unworthily. & 28. So let him eat of THAT bread, to wit whereof he had said before, that Christ by the verity of his word doth make it his body. Now he that eateth bread turned into Christ's body, or made his body doth not truly eat bread. As the Master of the Marriage-feast in Cana, who tasted water made wine, john. 2.9. did not taste water truly. For as water made wine is not water, even so bread consecrated and made our Lord's body, is not bread.  
The second is pag. 447. which he setteth out magnificently in a distinct letter, and each proposition in a several line. The substance is this: If the words of our Saviour, This is my body, change the substance of bread into his body, than also they change the quantity & accidents: For our Saviour took the whole bread into his hands, and said, this is my body, as well upon the accidents as upon the substance of bread. But they prove not the conversion of accidents. For Popish Transubstantiation is only a conversion of substance not of accidents. Therefore they prove not the conversion of the substance.  
Answer. The words of our Saviour this is my body, change not every thing into his body over which they be spoken by way of breathing, (for then they should change the air into his body) but only that, over which they are so spoken by way of signification that their signification can not be true in the literal sense, except that be hi● body. Now, the words of Christ This is my body, cannot be true in the literal sense, except the substance of bread be changed into his body, as the Minister doth confess pag. 397. lin. 17. But they may be true according to the letter, the substance being changed though the accidents remain. For if the Sacrament outwardly clothed with the forms and accidents of bread, be inwardly in nature and substance Christ's body, then is it truly and substantially his body, and may be said to be his body, taking the word, to be, in the proper sense for substantive being: even as jacob clothed with the garments of Esau was truly and substantially jacob, and not Esau, though in outward show and shape he seemed Esau. Therefore the literal truth of Christ's words, this is my body, enforceth us to say, that the substance of bread is changed into his body, but not that the quantity of bread is so changed. And thus the magnificence of your argument is marred & proved to be but an empty show.  
The third argument is pag. 422.423. In all miraculous substantial conversions a new substance is produced, but the body of Christ doth preexist & so cannot be produced. Answer. The mayor is false, as appeareth by millions of miraculous conversions which partly have been, partly shall be. For in the resuscitation of the dead when carcases are converted into men, no new thing is produced, but old things and substances which formerly had been, are reproduced. It is true, the power of nature being limited according to time & place, cannot reproduce, but only produce at one time, and in one place. But the power of God being infinite, eternal, immense and independent of time and place, can reproduce things that preexist, according to different times and places, as often, and in as many places, as he is pleased. Hence he can, and doth reproduce upon earth the body of our Saviour preexisting in heaven, as the Fathers aver. S. Ambros. l. 4. de Sacra. c. 4. When consecration is done, the body of Christ is MADE of bread. And S. Cyprian serm. de coena. Vsque hodie Divinissimum & Sanctissimum corpus CREATE. S. Gauden. homil. tract. 2. in Exod. Quia potest, & promisit, de pane corpus suum EFFICIT. S. Hierom. ep. ad Heliod. Sacerdotes corpus Christi proprio ore CONFICIUNT.  ?  
But some may object, that as a man showing a Leather-purse full of gold may truly say, this is gold; or a paper wrapped up full of silver, may say, this is silver; so the body of Christ being under consecrated bread, we may truly say, this is the body of Christ, though the substance of bread remain I answer, that when substances are apt of their nature, and ordained by use to contain other substances, then showing the substance which contains, we may signify the substance contained, as in the former examples. The reason is, because their natural aptitude to contain other things being vulgarly known, man's understanding strait passeth from the consideration of the substances containing, to think of the thing contained therein. But when substances are not by nature and custom ordained to contain others, we cannot by showing them demonstrate another, because their outward form, signify immediately the substance contained in them. For example, one puts a piece of Gold in an apple, & showing it, cries, this is Gold; in rigour of speech he saith not true, because the sense of his words is, that the thing demonstrated immediately by the forms and accidents of that apple, is Gold; yea put case that one should say, this is gold, showing a piece of paper unfolded, in a manner not apt to contain any thing in it, he should not say true, though by some devise he had put secretly into it a piece of gold. Because when the paper is showed displayed, and not as containing something in it, and yet is termed Gold, the proper sense of that speech is, that the substance immediately contained under the accidents of paper, is gold, although it be covered with other accidents than those that usually accompany the nature of gold.  
Wherefore the proposition of Christ, This is my body, being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt, nor by custom ordained to contain an humane body, it cannot be understood literally but of the subject immediately contained under, and demonstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of bread. Now, the thing that lies hidden immediately under the accidents of bread, which was once substantially bread, cannot become substantially the body of Christ except it be substantially converted into his body, or personally assumed by the same body. And seeing this second manner of union between bread & Christ's body is impossible, and rejected by Protestants aswell as by catholics▪ we may conclude that the mystery of Christ's Real presence cannot be believed in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation; Specially seeing our Saviour did not say, Hear is my body, which speech may be verified by the Presence of his body locally within the bread, but, This is my body, which imports that not only his body is truly, and substantially present, but also that it is the substance contained immediately under the accidents of bread.  
If any man say, that by this argument it appears that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture, but from the words of the Institution subtly deduced, and so may perchance be numbered inter scita Scholae, not inter dogmata Fidei. I answer that the consequence of this argument is not good, as is evident in the example of the Incarnation. The doctrine that the union of natures in Christ is proper not metaphorical, substantial not accidental, personal not essential, is no where expressly set down in the Scripture, but by subtle deduction inferred from the mystery which Scripture and Tradition deliver. Notwithstanding, because these subtle deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent unto the substance of the aforesaid mystery, they cannot be denied without prejudice of faith. In this sort the doctrine of Transubstantiation, though not in terms delivered by the Scripture, but deduced by subtle and speculative inference, may not be denied by them that will be perfect Believers, because the Church hath declared the same to pertain to the proper sense of Christ his words and substance of the mystery. Concil. Romanum sub Nicolao 1. & Lateranense sub Innocentio 3.   

Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers. §. 3.  
IT is certain the Fathers acknowledge a transmutation of bread into the body of Christ; & that they meant Transubstantiation, that is, not only a mystical & significative, but also a Real and substantial change, appears by these 5. circumstances of their doctrine in this point. First 
[I.] ¶ The Marginal Annotations corresponding to these ensuing Numbers, follow afterwards together.  by the expressness of their words, for there can be no words more significant and expressive of a substantial change between bread & our Saviour's body, than those the Father's use. Saint 
(s) Orat. Cathechis. c. 34.  Nissen; That the word made flesh is inserted within every faithful man, by his flesh taking his consistence of bread and wine, Consecration [II.] transelementing the nature of things appearing into the same flesh. S. Cyrill 
(t) Cyrill. Ep. ad Calosyrium. Influit oblatis vim vitae, convertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis.  saith: That we might not feel horror seeing flesh and blood on the sacred Altars, the Son of God condescending to our infirmities, doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered (to wit bread and wine) [III.] Converting them into the verity of his own flesh, that the body of life, as it were a certain seed of vivification might be found in us. Saint 
(u) Chrysost. hom. de Euchar. in Encoen. Nihil substantiae remanet, nihil superfluit.  Chrysostome: When wax is put into the fire, nothing of the substance thereof is left, nothing remains vnconsumed; [FOUR] so likewise do thou think that the mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body of Christ 
(x) Ambros. de initian. myster. c. 9 Non hoc quod natura formavit, sed quod benedictio consecravit. Benedictione enim ipsa natura mutatur. . S. Ambrose: What arguments shall we bring to prove, that in the Sacrament is not the thing which nature hath framed, but that thing which benediction hath consecrated; and that greater is the force of benediction then of nature, seeing by the benediction even Nature is changed [V]  
Secondly, they require that the Author that changeth bread into Christ his body, be [VI] Omnipotent, & consequently the change not merely significative but substantial [VII.] Saint Cyprian 
(z) Cyprian. de coena Domini. Panis non effigy, non natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. : This bread changed not in shape but in nature, by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh. S. Cyrill 
(f) Cyrill. orat. 4. mystagog. : He that in the marriage of Cana changed water into wine by his only will, is not he worthy that we believe him, that he hath changed wine into his blood? S. 
(g) Gaudent. tract. 2. in Exod.  Gaudent: The Lord, & Creator of natures, that of earth made bread, again (because he can do it, and hath promised to do it) makes of bread his own body; and he that of water made wine, now of wine hath made his blood.  
Thirdly, the instrument by which God works this Transubstantiation, is by them acknowledged the most efficacious that may be, to wit, the word not of man, but of God. S. Ambrose 
(h) Ambros. de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur. cap. ●. : Moses his word changed the waters of Egypt into blood, & again turned them from blood into water. If so great was the benediction of man, what may we think of divine consecration, where the very words of our Saviour work? The word of Elias had power to bring down fire from heaven, & shall not the words of Christ have force to change the kinds of the elements? Again 
(i) Ambros. lib. 4. de S●cram. cap. 4. : Thou seest how working & efficacious is the word of Christ. If therefore such virtue is in his word, that thereby things that are not, receive being; how much more hath it power, that the things that are still, remain (in the general latitude of being, & according to the sensible accidents) and be converted into another substance? [VIII.]  
Fourthly, the effect of this transmutation taught by the Fathers, is the presence of the substance of Christ's body, & the absence of the substance of bread, binding us to abnegate our senses, and not to believe what we seem to see with our eyes. [IX.] Theophilact 
(k) Theophilact. c. 4. 26. Matth. : Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation, although to us it seem bread, because we are weak, and have horror to eat raw flesh, especially the flesh of man; for this reason bread appeareth, but in essence and substance it is not bread. Saint Cyrill 
(l) Cyrill. Hieros'. Catech. mystagog. 4. : Come not therefore as unto simple bread and wine, for it is the body and blood of Christ, according to the affirmation of our Lord, for although sense suggest the contrary, yet let faith confirm thee. judge not of the thing by taste, but indubitably, & with full faith believe, that thou art made partaker of the body & blood of Christ. And again: Know this, & with full certitude believe, that the bread seen is not bread, though it so seem to the taste, but the body of Christ; & that wine seen is not wine, though taste judge it to be wine, but the blood of Christ. [X.]  
Finally, that the Fathers held Transubstantiation, is proved by the continuancy which they taught of Christ's body in the Sacrament, so long as the accidents of bread last, as appeareth by their reserving of the same. For reservation to have been the custom of the primitive Church Protestant's grant. That 
(m) Habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum fateor. Caluin. Instit. l. 9 c. 17. sect. 39  the Sacrament was (of some) reserved in the elder days of the Church, is not (saith 
(n) Fulke against Heskins, Saunders. p. 77.  M. Fulke) so great a question, as whether it ought to be reserved. And Chemnitius 
(o) Chemnit. in exam. Con. Trid. p. 2. p. 102.  granteth that in this point on our side stands Antiquitas consuetudinis latè patentis, & diu propagatae. And whereas he addeth, haec tamen veritati praescribere non debet, he accuseth the Primitive Church, & opposeth no less against them, than us. And I am sure your Majesty knows, that the primitive Fathers did use to send the Sacrament unto them that were lawfully absent from Church, as doth witness S. justine 
(p) justin. Apol. 2. fine. , & unto the sick, as 
(q) Dionys. Alexand ep. ad Fab. apud Euseb. l. 6. cap. 36. Chrysost. Ep. 1. ad Innocent.  Dionysius Alexandrinus writes of Serapion: That Christians carried the same to their private houses, to take in the morning before other meat, as testifieth Tertullian 
(r) Tertul. l. 2. ad uxorem. Gregor. Nazian. orat. de Gorgon. : That many times they did wear the same about them for protection, as 
(s) Ambros. orat. in obit●● fratris Satyri.  Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose going to sea, carried it in a stole, by virtue whereof he was saved in shipwreck: That Martyrs had the same frequently for their Viaticum, as 
(t) Simeon Metaphrast. vitae S. Stephani Papae & Martyris. cap. 17. Vsuard. in martyrolog. Guitmund. de corp. & sanguine. l. 2.  Tharsilius a most glorious Martyr, who being taken with the Sacrament about him, permitted himself rather to be bruised with stones to death, then disclose it unto the Persecutors, whom when they had crowned, thy searching curiously for the Sacrament in his clothes and about his dead body, found nothing; God by miracle keeping the same out of their impious hands. Saint 
(u) Cyprian. serm. de Lapsis.  Cyprian records diverse miracles done in the confirmation of this our Saviour's permanent presence in the Sacrament namely of a woman unworthily approaching to the chest where the same was kept, that was frighted back with fire that thence flashed out, tanta est Domini potentia (saith Saint Cyprian) tanta maiestas. And so fully were they persuaded in this opinion that Christ's body is permanently in the Sacrament, that Cyrill 
(x) Cyrill. Alex. ep. ad Calosyr.  dareth say: Insaniunt qui dicunt benedictionem à sanctificatione cessare, siquae reliquiae remanserunt eius in sequentem diem. Non enim mutabitur Sacrosanctum corpus Christi, sed virtus benedictionis, & vivificativa gratia iugis in eo est. They be mad with heretical folly who say, that the blessed Sanctification of the Sacrament ceaseth if the same be reserved until the next day: For thereby the sacred body of Christ is not changed, but the grace of benediction & vivification is perpetual in it. Now what reason could the Fathers have thus constantly to defend this continuation of our Saviour in the Sacrament, but that they believed bread to be changed into his body, remaining demonstrable by the forms & accidences thereof, so long as they remained entire, and were not changed into the accidences of some other substances? [XI.]  

A Refutation of the Ministers Shifts, to elude the former Testimonies of the Fathers, according to the reference of the precedent Numbers.  
[1] NO words of Scripture, or Christian Antiquity can be so clear & evident, which Heretical obstinacy will not wrest against the truth, yea rack till they rend them in pieces by violent interpretations, as saith S. Ambrose Ep. 17. In which kind be the Ministers Replies unto these express & pregnant testimonies of the Fathers for Transubstantiation, as will appear by the confutation which here ensueth.  
[II.] Transelementing. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Transelementation (saith the Minister pag. 421.) proveth not Transubstantiation. For in Transubstantiation the matter is destroyed, & the quantity and accidents remain; & in Transelementation the matter remaineth, & the essential & accidental forms are altered.  
Answer. The falsehood and inanity of this Shift is convinced by these four arguments, which show Transelementation to import the same as Transubstantiation.  
The First is drawn from the notion of the word Elements, & Transelementation. For Transelementation of bread and wine, into the body and blood of our Lord, signify, that there is a change betwixt them according to their elements. Elements import the primordial simples, the original principles, the substantial parts of which a thing is fundamentally composed. Hence Fire, Air, Water, Earth, as also the Letters of the Alphabet be termed Elements, because both are primordial simples and substantial parts, the one of mixed substances, the other of words and sentences. Now, the body and blood of Christ, as also bread & wine being corporal substances, the primordial simples and substantial principles whereof their nature is originally composed, be substantial matter & form, as every Philosopher knows. Ergo, Transelementation of bread & wine into Christ's body and blood, doth import that bread and wine be changed into Christ's body & blood, according to their Elements, that is, matter & form. Is not this Transubstantiation?  
The second reason is, because in Transelementation matter doth no more remain then in Transubstantiation: & so your devised difference betwixt them is false. For as when Transelementation is partial, that is, according to form only, the matter remains; so likewise in Transubstantiation. For example, when wood is turned into fire, the form being destroyed, the matter remaineth. As wood by this change may be said to be Transelemented into fire, because it is changed into fire according to the form, which is one element of wood; so likewise, it may be said to be Transubstantiated into fire, because it is changed into fire, according to the form which is one part of the substance of wood. Though Christians do not use so to speak, because aswel the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Grecian Church, as the word Transubstantiation by the latin, be consecrated to signify the substantial change in the Eucharist, which is total according to both elements & substantial parts.  
Thirdly, I thus argue. The Minister grants, that Transelementation doth import an essential change, or a change according to the essential form of bread into Christ's body; but this cannot be according to the essential form only, & not also according to the essential matter of bread, else the body of Christ should be made bigger by the matter of bread changed into it, as we see the fire to be made bigger by the matter of wood remaining after the conversion thereof into fire. Ergo, seeing the Minister grants that Transelementation imports an essential change, he must (if he will not be ridiculously absurd) consequently grant, that this change is to tall; else the body of Christ shall be augmented by the material addition of bread unto it.  
Fourthly, this is proved by the Father's appropriation of this word unto the mystery of the holy Eucharist. For did not Transelementation of bread & wine into Christ's body & blood import a substantial change, but only an accidental, mystical, & significative conversion of them, I ask; First, why do the Fathers never say, that the water of Baptism is Transelemented into Christ's blood, as well as they say, that wine is Transelemented into his blood? For thus they might have spoken of Baptism as well as of the Eucharist, had they been of the Protestants Religion, which is, that water is mystically and significatively made Christ's blood in Baptism, as much as wine in the Eucharist. Secondly, why do the Fathers never say, that our bodies in the day of judgement are Transelemented into Christ's body, but only (as the Minister cities S. Nissen. orat. Catechist. c. 34.) transmutantur, they be transmuted? why this, but because transmutation being a General term, signify any mutation whether substantial or accidental; whereas Transelementation cannot import but a substantial change? Finally, why do the Fathers never say, that man's soul is by grace & charity Transelemented into Christ, into whom the same is mystically changed? Theophilact indeed cited by the Minister in joan. c. 6. v. 56. saith, that a man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in a manner Transelemented into Christ, as he might no less truly have said, in a manner Transubstantiated into Christ; but that men are by grace Transelemented into Christ, they never say. Which be manifest signs, that the Fathers understood by Transelementation, according to the proper & natural signification of the word, a substantial conversion, & not only an accidental, much less a mere mystical change.  
[III.] S. Cyrill (saith the Minister) by the words, Converting bread and wine into the verity of his own flesh, understandeth not Popish Transubstantiation, but mystical & Sacramental Conversion, to wit, Conversion of signification, use, & operation. For he speaketh of bread & wine, according to their whole nature containing substance & accidents, but the accidents are only mystically converted into Christ his body. Answer. This mist which the Minister would cast upon this matter by the term of mystical conversion, serves only to catch Woodcocks; for every man of judgement may presently see, that this sense cannot stand with the words of S. Cyrill.  
For S. Cyrill saith, that did men see and feel what is inwardly done in consecrated bread & wine, men should find horror to feed thereon, because they should see and feel, that they eat and drink flesh & blood. Hence that this may not be perceived, he saith, the conversion of bread & wine, is done inwardly by Christ's penetrative power, converting them into the verity of his flesh and blood. But did men see, what is inwardly done in bread & wine by the Protestant significative conversion, they would feel no horror: for in their Tenet, no change at all is made inwardly in bread, but the whole outward substance is assumed as an Instrument to sanctify the soul. If a Christian should see this conversion of use & operation; should he see, I say, that bread is elevated to produce sanctifying grace in his soul, why should he feel horror to feed thereon? So that it is not only wilfulness against the light of truth, but also folly to expound this place of S. Cyrill, of mere mystical & significative change.  
[FOUR] Unto this Testimony of S. Chrysostome, the Minister replieth in these words. The Father saith not, that nothing of the substance is left, but the clean the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nothing of the substance goeth away: & the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are falsely translated, for they are not, Is consumed by the substance, but, Is coabsumed with the substance. Also the substance of bread is not consumed by the body of Christ, according to the Tenet of many Schoolmen. The substance of the external elements passeth into the body of the receiver, & is consumed, or united to the flesh of the receiver.  
Answer. This your Reply toucheth two points, first the Translation, secondly the sense of this place. I will discover your vanity about both. As concerning the first, you show yourself to be a wrangler, and given unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by S. Paul, labouring to make those sayings to be dissonant and contrary, betwixt which there is not any difference in respect of sense. What disagreement in respect of sense is there between these two sentences which you say be contrary; When wax is put into the fire, nothing of the substance thereof is left; When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance thereof goeth away? Certainly they disagree as much as these two, which for sense are just the same; When meat is set on the Table before the hungry persons nothing is left; When meat is set on the table before hungry persons, nothing goeth away. For when S. Chrysostome saith, wax being put into fire, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing of the substance goeth away, you cannot (except you would have him seem a ●oole) make him mean, that nothing of the wax goeth away by consumption, and metling into the fire, (for every child knoweth this to be false.) His meaning them is, nothing of the substance goeth away from the fire vnconsumed, but the whole substance is converted into fire, as the jesuit expounds.  
Also what difference betwixt these two translations which you make Contrary; The mysteries are together consumed by the substance of the body: The mysteries are coabsumed with the substance of the body? They be punctually the very same in regard of sense, as much as these two are; Wood and Coale are coabsumed with fire: Wood & Coale are together consumed by fire. For without question S. Chrysostome saying, that the mysteries are consumed with the substance of the body, as wax is by fire, doth intent, that the body is the Instrument whereby the mysteries are consumed, as fire is the Instrument to consume wax.  
As concerning the sense of this place, that S. Chrysostome doth intent to teach that the substance of bread is consumed by the body of Christ, not by the body of the receiver, is evident by the drift of his discourse. Which because it is clear & pregnant for Transubstantiation, I will set it down in Greek, as it is in M. Savells Edition, in the 7. To me amongst S. Chrysostom's Genuine works, Homil. 6. de poenitentia pag. 690. where S. Chrysostome reprehending them who having spent the morning of festival days in ridiculous vanities and toys, yet come to the holy Sacraments, saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which is in English.  
After (these vanities) with what confidence dost thou approach unto the Mysteries, with a conscience so polluted? If thou didst hold dung in thy hands, durst thou touch the hem of the garment of an earthly King? No, thou durst not. Do not regard that it is bread (in outward show,) do not think that it is wine, for it is not meat that is cast out by egestion as others are. God forbid, do not so think. But as when wax is joined to the fire, nothing of the substance thereof goeth away (out of the fire inconsumed;) so do thou think the mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body. Wherefore coming to receive, do not think you take the divine body as from the hand of a man, but as fire from the tongues of the Seraphim.  
Thus S. Chrysostome, affirming, and proving that the mystical bread and wine, be not in truth and substance bread and wine, but the body of Christ, because as wax is so consumed by fire as nothing of the substance thereof escapeth, or goeth away; so the substance of bread & wine is consumed by the substance of Christ's body.  
The conceit insinuated by the Minister, that S. Chrysostome means that the mystical Elements, are indeed consumed, but by the body of the receiver, is most silly. For S. Chrysostome, because the Sacramental bread and wine be consumed by the substance of the body, concludes that therefore when we receive, we must not think we receive bread and wine in truth, nor ordinary meat such as is cast out by egestion. What discourse can be more sottish than this of S. Chrysostome, did he mean, as you would make him, that the mystical elements be by digestion consumed into the flesh of the receiver, and that therefore when we take them they be not truly bread and wine, nor such meat as is cast out by egestion; for his reason concludes the plain contrary of what he would prove. Again, S. Chrysostome having said, that the mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body as wax is by fire, infers that therefore when we receive, we ought to receive Christ's divine body, as FIRE from the hand of the Seraphim, which clearly shows, that the divine body of Christ is by him said to be, as FIRE consuming into itself the substance of bread & wine, and not the body of the receiver. Where note that this holy Father doth not say, that we should think the Sacrament to be a coal of fire taken from the hand of the Seraphim, but (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) think, as if we received a coal of fire from the tongues of the Seraphim: whence is answered the silly objection the Minister makes, that if we take the words of S. Chrysostome as they found, we must say that the Sacrament is fire, and not given by the Priest, but by the Seraphim. For Saint Chrysostom's words neither have this sense, nor sound.  
Finally, what he saith, that the substance of bread is not consumed by the body of Christ, according to the Tenet of many Schoolmen, shows his want of skill to understand Scholastic Authors. For they all agree, that the body of Christ made present in the Eucharist by vigour of his word This is my body, doth destroy and consume the substance of bread, at the least morally, that is, by binding God to destroy it, that his word may be true, which without the destruction of bread, cannot be true in the sense by him intended. Only the question is, whether the body of Christ as present, have also physical opposition with the substance of bread, destroying the same by physical impression made upon it; wherein some hold the affirmative, some the negative part, whom the Minister in his margin citeth saying, substantiam corporis Christi non pugnare cum substantia panis SVAPTE NATURA. Is not this impertinent?  
[V.] The Minister here saith: It is inconsequent to argue, they are changed in nature: Ergo, their natural substance is destroyed. For S. Peter speaking of Regenerate persons 2. Pet. 1.5. saith, they are made partakers of the Divine Nature, and yet his meaning is not, that their former substance is abolished.  
Answer. First the Minister doth not set down the true force of the argument: For the argument is not, Bread is changed in nature, Ergo, the substance thereof is destroyed; but thus we argue. What is so changed in nature, that it is no longer the thing or substance nature framed, is destroyed according to the substance thereof. This is manifest, for were not the nature thereof destroyed, it should be still the thing and substance nature framed. But S. Ambrose saith, & bringeth many convincing arguments out of Scripture to prove, that by consecration bread is so changed in nature, as, Non est quod natura formavit, it is no longer the thing and substance nature framed, but the body of Christ: Ergo, according to Saint Ambrose, bread in the Eucharist is so changed, as the nature thereof is abolished into the body of Christ.  
Secondly, the example you bring about Regenerate persons, is by you used impertinently; and truly pondered & applied, serveth our purpose. For in Regeneration the substance of man is not abolished, because by Regeneration man is changed to be participant of the Divine Nature, not from what he is originally by the constitution of nature, but from what he is by the corruption of the Devil and sin. Hence by virtue of Regeneration a man ceaseth to be, not according to the substantial Origen of his nature, but only according to the superinduced perversion thereof by the Devil. But in the Eucharist Saint Ambrose saith, that bread by consecration passeth into the sacred body of Christ, from the thing it was by the framing & constitution of nature: Ergo, bread according to S. Ambrose ceaseth to be according to the thing it is, by the framing of nature, to wit the essence of bread.  
[VI] The Minister Replies: That to a mystical change the omnipotency of God is required, as appeareth in Baptism. Therefore, although some Fathers require an omnipotent power to elevate, and change the creatures of bread and wine, yet it followeth not, that they maintained Transubstantiation.  
Answer. The Fathers indeed require the omnipotency of God in Baptism, not to change the nature of water into the nature and verity of Christ's blood, but to the end, that water remaining water unchanged in nature, be elevated to produce sanctifying grace in the souls of men. Thus Saint Leo (by you often cited) serm. 4. de nativit. saith, Virtus altissimi quae fecit ut virgo pareret Saluatorem, eadem facit ut regeneret unda credentem. He doth not say (as you would make fools believe the Father's use to speak) that the Divine omnipotency doth change the water into the nature and verity of his blood; but, That the same power of the Highest makes water, being water, to bring forth regenerate persons, which caused a virgin, remaining a virgin, to bring forth the Saviour.  
But about the holy Eucharist the Fathers speak in another manner: They require the Omnipotency of God, not to eleavate bread & wine, that remaining still in nature bread and wine, they may sanctify men's souls, but to change them into Christ's body and blood, by which change they become in themselues without further elevation, proportioned means to sanctify souls, as containing within themselves the fountain of grace. Yea the Father's speeches about the water of baptism, be so different from their speeches about the bread and wine of the Eucharist, as this alone might suffice to convert the Minister were he not obstinate. What Fathers say, that Christ at the Marriage of souls with him in Baptism can, & doth convert water into his blood by his omnipotency, as he could, and did convert water into Wine at the carnal Marriage of Cana, as S. Cyrill, & S. Gaudentius cited by the jesuit, say of the wine of the Eucharist? What Father doth say, that water changed not in shape but in nature, is by the omnipotency of the word, made his flesh, as is said of the Eucharistical bread by the Author of the book De Coena Domini?  
[VII.] Though some question be made, whether this Author was S. Cyprian, yet learned men both Catholics and Protestants agree, he was an holy ancient Father: The Author of the book de Coena Domini (saith M. Fulke against the Rhem. Testam in 1. Cor. 11. fol. 282.) was not in time much inferior to Cyprian. Erasmus in his Annotations upon S. Cyprian printed at Basill Anno 1558. fol. 287. saith: The Author was some learned man of S. Cyprian his age, as Pamelius doth demonstrate by many evident reasons; so that we have Transubstantiation as ancient as S. Cyprian. For what the Minister saith that this Author meaneth only a mystical and Sacramental change to be made, is idle, as I thus demonstrate. The change this holy Father teacheth, is made not in the shape, quantity, & accidents of bread, but only in the inward nature and essence thereof, panis non effigie sed natura mutatus. But the Ministers mystical conversion is made upon the shape, quantity, & accidents of bread, as he saith pag. 425. it passeth upon the quantity and accidents of bread, as well as upon the substance. Ergo, the conversion of bread into Christ's flesh taught by this holy ancient Father, is an inward substantial conversion, and not the Ministers mystical change.  
[VIII.] What the Minister saith to this Argument, that the Fathers affirm, the water of Baptism to be changed into Christ's blood, by the virtue of his word, is false; nor hath he cited any Father that doth so affirm. Yea such speaking of the water of Baptism were ridiculous, or rather impious, as affirming things about the mysteries of Religion, which may make them seem senseless and ridiculous, without any ground so to affirm in God's word. For Christ never saith of the water of Baptism, Be washed herewith, for this is my blood, as he saith often in Scripture of the wine of the Eucharist, drink ye of this, for this is my blood.  
[IX.] To the fourth argument the Minister replies, that, the Fathers exhort People to abnegate their senses in Baptism, wherein they maintain no Transubstantiation. I Answer. The Minister still singes the same song that the fathers speak in the same manner of the conversion of water into Christ's blood in Baptism, as they speak about the conversion of wine in the Eucharist, which is most false; and the Minister hath not cited the words any Father so affirming. The Fathers about Baptism, exhort men to believe that God can by water wash and purify the soul, and this to be a supernatural work above the natural force of water, which one may believe without contradicting the evidence of any of his senses, yea without any great difficulty in reason. For what great matter is it to believe, that God being omnipotent, at the presence of water washing the body, can inwardly by grace wash the soul? But about the Eucharist they say, that we must firmly and indubitately believe, that that which seemeth bread and wine is not bread & wine, but the body & blood of Christ, so that under the form of bread and wine is given us the blood of our Lord; and though sense suggest the contrary that it is wine, we must abnegate, and not believe our senses herein: Show one Father (I say) that doth thus affirm of the water of Baptism, that we must firmly, and indubitately believe the same not to be water in truth, though it be water in show; and because our sight, feeling, and taste suggest that it is water, that we must with full Faith abnegate and deny this judgement framed by sense.  
[X.] The Minister here pag. 429. bringeth three trivial arguments, to prove the Fathers held the substance of bread to remain after consecration, which are not worth the answering; yet I will say a word to each of them, not to omit any thing that may seem substantial in his Reply.  
The first, The Fathers teach that the creatures of bread and wine remain, but the abstracted shapes of bread and wine be not Gods creatures, but Popish fancies. I Answer, the force of this argument doth consist in two lies, the one imposed upon the Fathers, the other upon us. For first, the Fathers you cite do not say that the Creatures of bread and wine remain in the Eucharist after consecration, but that the holy Eucharist is made of the Creatures of bread and wine, they being converted & turned into the body and blood of Christ, saying: Before consecration it is bread, but after Consecration, of bread is made the flesh of Christ. Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. Secondly we say, that the true, solid, and real quantity of bread, endued with all the true qualities and natural properties remain, and not only abstracted shapes and fancies, as you maliciously or dreamingly misrelate our Doctrine. Hence true is the saying of Irenaeus (l 4. c. 34.) that the holy Eucharist is composed of two things, the one heavenly, to wit the body of Christ, the other earthly, to wit the quantity of bread endued with the sensible and earthly properties thereof.  
The second, The Fathers teach, that the signs and elements are present, and have power to feed, and nourish the body; but Mathematical bread and wine have not power no nourish the body, for there is in them only the shadow of grain and grapes; and Papists may as well say, That painted bread hath power of feeding. Answer. This argument is like the former, grounded on the Ministers false slandering o● dreaming misprision of our Doctrine. For we hold that the quantity of bread, endued with the sensible virtues, and qualities of bread remains truly, really, substantially, and not only in a shadow and picture of bread. Now the quantity of bread and wine endued with the active qualities, can please, delight, altar and change the body of the receiver, and be again altered and changed by the nutritive power thereof, and so nourish the body, as the jesuit hath declared in the second Consideration.  
The Third, The Fathers affirm, that the elements of the Eucharist, resemble the mystical union betwixt Christ & Christian people, to wit, bread confected of many grains of wheat, and wine of many grapes; but Popish fictions, and Mathematical shadows of grain and grapes, cannot resemble this mystical union. Answer. The Fathers do not say, as you impose upon them, that the Eucharistical bread and wine, resemble the mystical union betwixt Christ and Christian people, but the union Christians must have betwixt themselves, that they may be united unto Christ, as the mystical body to their head. To represent this union, the sacred signs must be truly bread and wine, not after consecration, but before. For as no substances be conuerted into the natural body and blood of Christ, but such as are made of many grains and grapes united together in one mass, so none can be united unto Christ by grace, and made partakers of his saving gifts, but such as being many by nature, are united by Charity, concord, and due subordination in one mystical body, the holy Church. So that not the Eucharistical signs, but your arguments be fictions and shadows, without any truth, substance or solidity in them.  
[XI.] To the fifth argument, the Minister saith; Because this jesuit produceth no new matter, but only repeateth what we have formerly confuted; and especially because Reservation concludeth not Transubstantiation, I forbear further examination of the particular Testimonies produced by him.  
Answer. With what forehead could you say, that this jesuit here produceth no new matter, but ONLY repeateth what you have formerly confuted? Might not I with truth say, this is more than only? For where have you answered formerly the testimonies of the Fathers here cited by the jesuit, that hold the Eucharist to remain the body of Christ out of use; and that it is to be worshipped and adored as such? Where have you answered the Confession the jesuit doth here produce of Protestants, even of your Kemnitius (to whom you here refer us in your margin,) affirming, Reservation of the Sacrament (which you detest as Idolatry) to have been the continual custom of the primitive Christian Church largely diffused over the world, Antiqua consuetudo latè patens & diu propagata; thereby granting Christian Antiquity, Universality, and Continuance to stand for us, against you?  
But you say, that Reservation concludes not Transubstantiation. This proveth your shallow insight into these matters, as by these two arguments I show. First, the Father's reserving the Sacrament, show they held such a Real Presence, as by virtue thereof the body of Christ must of necessity be present so long as the accidents of bread remain: For they would not have bound Christians to adore the Sacrament as Christ's body, so long as the proper accidents of bread remain, had they not held, that the same is the body of Christ infallibly, and by divine Institution, so long as the foresaid accidents remain. But neither the Zuinglian presence by figure, nor the Caluinian presence by Faith, nor the Lutheran presence by Consubstantiation, doth (as themselves teach) of necessity enforce the Sacrament to be the body of Christ so long as the accidents of bread remain, but only the presence by Transubstantiation hath this nature & force: Ergo, the Fathers held neither the Zwinglian, nor the Caluinian, nor the Lutheran Presence, but the Catholic Transubstantiation.  
Secondly, the Fathers as hath been showed, do perpetually affirm that bread and wine are converted, transelemented, changed into the nature and verity of Christ's flesh and blood, so that Protestants have no shift to avoid the evidence of this their Christian consent for our Religion against them, but by saying they speak only of mystical conversion, to wit, of signification, use, and operation, as saith our Minister pag. 422. lin. 1. But their reserving the Sacrament, and adoring the same reserved as Christ's body, permanently and out of use, doth convince, that they maintained another conversion then mere significative of operation and use, as is manifest. Ergo, the Fathers by reserving the Sacrament show manifestly, two things. First that they held the Catholic doctrine of substantial conversion: Secondly, that Ministers willingly, & against their conscience expound their sayings as teaching no more but Conversion, of mere signification, use, & operation.  
Against this consent of Fathers Protestants object the testimony of Theodoret 
(y) 
Theodoret. Dialog. Inconfusus.  
Gelasius de duabus naturis adversus Eutichet.   & Gelasius, who in plain terms affirm that the substance of bread and wine remains in the holy Eucharist, bringing this as an example of the Incarnation, where the natures of God and Man remain in Christ: Signa mystica (saith Theodoret) post sanctificationem non recedunt à sua natura. And Gelasius, non esse desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini.  
I answer, that these Fathers by the nature of bread and wine, understand the natural qualities that flow form the nature and essence of bread and wine 
(a) By substance also, they understand not the inward substance, but outward corpulency & massines of bread and wine. ; for ordinarily and in common speech, the natural accidents and proprietyes of a thing are termed the nature of a thing. Thus we say, to be heavy and fall downward is the nature of the stone, to be hot and to burn, the nature of the fire, which are but natural qualities of stone and fire. By this, or rather by a more strange manner of speech S. Theodoret Bishop of Ancyra 
(b) Hom. de nativit. Saluatoris, in corr. Epiph. p. 3. c. 9  to explicate against Nestorius, and Eutiches, the conjunction of two Natures in one Person, by the example of the water that Moses' converted into blood, saith, That the water was not changed in nature, nor did cease to be water; which in rigour of speech, taking the nature of water for the inward substance thereof, as condistinct from the natural qualities, is not true. But because water changed into blood, remains according to some natural qualities and properties which it hath common with bread, as moisture, liquidnes, & the like, he the better to fit & accommodate the similitude saith, The water remained according to the nature, that is, according to some natural qualities thereof. For these Fathers 
(c) These Fathers understood not the inward Nature of bread and wine to remain, nor the inward substance, because they say, that the mystical signs pass by the working of the holy Ghost, into another substane, & yet remain in the propriety of their nature. So saith Gelasius; which cannot be understood otherwise then that according to their outward nature and substance they remain, though in their inward nature and substance they be changed, and passed into the substance of Christ's body and blood.  bring those similitudes to declare the mystery of the Incarnation against the Heresy of Eutiches, who denied the natural qualities & properties of the two Natures of God and Man to remain distinct in the person of Christ. This error they rejected by the example of the Eucharist, where the natural qualities of bread, remain together with the body of Christ in the same Sacrament: which natural qualities of bread they term the nature of bread (as in some sense they may be termed) to the end that the phrase, of two distinct natures remaining, might be common to the mysteries of the Incarnation and Eucharist, and so the similitude seem more fit and proper. Yet the Fathers know well, that the phrase did not agree to both mysteries equally in the same sense. And this obscure uttering of his mind is the less to be wondered at in Theodoret, because he doth profess in that place not to speak plainly, as fearing that some Infidels or Gatechumen were present, to whom the mystery of Transubstantiation was not to be revealed. Non oportet (saith he) apertè dicere, est enim verisimile adesse aliquos non initiatos.  
Much less cause have they to stand upon the words of Saint Augustine, 
(d) August. serm. ad Infant. apud Bedam in cap. 10.  Quod videtur, panis est, quod etiam oculi renuntiant; quod autem fides postulat, panis est corpus Christi. For the sense is, that consecrated bread is bread in outward appearance, and the natural accidences of bread truly remain as the eye doth witness, but inwardly and according to the substance it is not bread, but the body of Christ, as faith requireth we believe. And it is to be noted that these words are not extant in the works of S. Augustine, but alleged by Venerable Bede a follower of Saint Augustine's doctrine, and so it is not likely they are to be understood, but as Bede understood them, who sets down his mind in these words: 
(e) Beda de mysterio missae apud Thom. walden's. Tom. 2. c. 8. 2.  The form of bread is seen, but the substance of bread is not there, nor any other bread, but only that bread which came down from heaven. 
(*) The Minister pag. 435. to make a show of many Fathers, addeth unto Theodoret and Gelasius the testimony of Bertram, S. Chrysostome in epist. ad Caesarium Monachum. S. Irenaeus, S. Damascen. Answer. The book of Bertram is of no credit, being set forth with many Protestant additions, as themselves confess, and you may see proved in a Treatise termed The Plea for the Real Presence against Sir Humfrey Lynd his Bertran. The Epistle ad Caesarium Monachum is not S. Chrysostom's. S. Irenaeus his testimony hath been already showed to be impertinently alleged. S. Damascen is by you grossly abused, as being brought quite contrary to his mind. For when he saith (l. 4. de fide c. 14.) As a fiery coal is wood and fire, so the bread of the holy Communion is not only bread, but bread united to the Divinity, he meaneth by the bread of the holy Communion, not bread remaining bread, but bread changed into Christ his flesh. To say that bread remaining bread in substance, is united personally unto the Deity, is impious; & S. Damascen, in that place, doth most clearly show, that he speaketh of bread changed into flesh. For thus he writeth: Christ did conjoin his divinity with bread and wine, that so by things that are common, and to which we are used, we may attain to things divine and above nature, for verily the body borne of the Virgin, is a body united unto the Deity, not that his body assumpted into heaven doth again descend (in the Eucharist) from heaven, but that bread itself, and wine are converted into the flesh and blood of God. And a little after: A coal is not only wood, but wood joined to fire; so the bread of the holy Communion is not simple bread, but bread united unto the Deity. But the body united to the Deity, is not any single nature, but the nature of flesh and the nature of the Deity be conjoined together in it. Thus he, most clearly showing, not that the bread of the holy Communion, remaining bread in nature, is united to the Deity, to make together with it a personal compound of two natures (it were blasphemy so to think) but that bread changed into Christ's flesh, is united to the Deity, because the flesh into which it is changed is not mere and only flesh, but also flesh united with the Deity. How intolerably is S. Damascen falsifyed by you? Being truly and fully cited how fully doth he teach Transubstantiation? But such is your Religion you must make a show of the Fathers to be on your side, though you know in conscience they make against you: you must patch together some of their mangled sentences to make a gay fooles-coate for your silly Credents, lest they seem naked.     

The seeming repugnances this mystery hath with sense, should incline Christians the sooner to believe it. §. 4.  
THE former proof of Transubstantiation might satisfy, were this mystery not accompanied with many seeming absurdityes & repugnances against sense, particularly these four. First, that a body as big as our Saviour's, remaining still truly corpulent in itself, should be contained within the compass of a round Host scarce an inch long and broad. Secondly, that a body so glorious should be combined unto corruptible elements, and so made subject unto the indignities and obscenityes that may befall unto them. Thirdly, that the body may be in heaven and on earth, in innumerable places at once. Fourthly, that the substance of bread being converted into Christ's body, the sole accidents remain by themselves performing the whole office of substance, no less then if it were present even to the nutrition of man's body. These difficultyes so scandalise Protestants that some condemn Transubstantiation as impossible yea as 
(f) Field of the Church lib. 3.  absurd, ridiculous, barbarous: Others profess they cannot subdue their understandings to believe it as a matter of Faith. To give full satisfaction in this point, I set down this proposition that these seeming absurdityes should not avert, but rather incline a true Christian mind to believe this mystery. In proof whereof I present unto your Majesty these three Considerations. 
(g) The Minister here saith, that this long tract about God's omnipotency is impertinent, because Protestants deny not God's omnipotency. But this Cavil is refuted in the Censure, Sect. 3. §. 3. where it is showed that to deny the literal sense of God's word about the mysteries of our faith to be possible unto God, is Infidelity. Now Protestants grant the holy Eucharist to be a chief mystery of faith, & Transubstantiation to be the literal sense of God's word about the same: wherefore this tract about the Divine omnipotency is pertinently brought against them.   

The first Consideration.  
The first is grounded upon the supposal of two things most certain. First, that the Primitive Church preaching unto Pagans, jews, and other Infidels the rest of Christian mysteries, as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of the body, did most carefully keep as much as might be from their knowledge the mystery of the Eucharist, yea Catechumen and Novices were not before Baptism fully taught or instructed therein. Secondly, the reason moving the primitive Church to be careful in this point was, least Catechumen & Infidels being fully acquainted with the whole mystery, the one should be scandalised, & the other mock thereat. Hence it was accounted such an heinous offence that Christians should discover unto Infidels, or dispute about the difficultyes thereof in their presence.  
The Council 
(g) Concil. Alexand. apud Athanas. Apolog. 2.  of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arrians, number this as one of the greatest: They were not ashamed in public, and as it were upon a scaffold to treat of the mysteries before Catechumen, and (which is worse) before Pagans. And a little after: It 
(h) Epist. julij apud Athanas. Apol. 2.  is not lawful to publish the mysteries before them that are not initiated, for fear Pagans out of ignorance mock, and Catechumen entering into curiosities be scandalised. And again: Before Catechumen, & (which is more) before jews & Pagans blaspheming Christianity they handled a question about the body and blood of our Saviour. And to the same purpose Saint Ambrose 
(i) Ambros. de myster. initian. c. 1.  saith: To declare the mysteries unto them that be Catechumen, is no tradition, but prodition, seeing by such declarations danger is incurred, lest they be diuulged unto Infidels that will scoff at them. This supposed, I infer that the seeming absurdities of the Catholic real presence, should encourage a true Christian mind to believe it. For a true Christian desires to believe, and firmly cleave unto the real Presence that was believed by the primitive Church. But this was a real Presence accompanied with many (seeming gross) absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfy Infidels therein, or to keep them from blaspheming, but by concealing the mystery from them, and consequently they held the Catholic, not the Protestant doctrine in this point.  
The Protestant's 
(k) The Minister pag. 442. lin. 12. saith, that Protestant's hold the elements of bread & wine to remain, to be instruments of our conjunction by grace unto God, and that this is a mystery incomprehensible. Answer. First Protestants do not hold the elements of bread and wine to be proper instruments infusing grace into man's soul, but that men are justified by their faith only▪ & that this Sacrament is a mere sign and seal thereof. Secondly, though Sacramental influence of grace into the soul be a thing supernatural, yet no mystery of extraordinary difficulty to be believed, nor absurd unto sense. For this is no more than that upon our eating and drinking of bread and wine in remembrance of Christ's body broken, & of his blood shed on the Cross, God infuse soule-nourishing grace into the worthy receiver. Now, what difficulty to believe this? or what seeming absurdity therein? This is no greater mystery, then that upon the washing of the body with the element of water, God inwardly wash the soul with grace. Wherefore, seeing Protestant's can find in their Eucharist no mystery more hard, & seemingly absurd, than in Baptism, doubtless it is not the mystery of the Primitive Church concealed from Infidels, in regard of the seeming absurdity and immanity thereof unto carnal imagination: whereas Baptism was not conceived to be of that seeming absurdity, nor concealed.  doctrine that makes Christ's body present spiritually by faith unto the devout receiver, that communicating thinks sweetly of Christ's passion and death, contains no mystery to be concealed in respect of the seeming absurdityes; yea the Fathers did not fear to declare to Catechumen this Sacrament, so fare as it was commemorative of Christ and his passion, as appears by the treatises of Saint Augustine upon S. john made before Catechumen; out of which Treatises Protestant's for their mere commemorative Presence allege many sentences to little purpose. For, he there explicates spiritual manducation by faith, and he excludes the gross imagination of eating Christ's body in his proper shape, tearing it in pieces with the teeth; but denies not, yea rather insinuates another kind of spiritual manducation, not only by faith, but by real sumption, though to conceal the mystery from Catechumen he speaks not so clearly thereof. Wherefore as the Palmtree the heavier the weight is that is laid upon it, the more it riseth upward, as it were joying in difficultyes: So a true Catholic Christian feeling in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming absurdityes that press carnal imagination to the ground, groweth thereby more strong to believe it, embracing these difficultyes as manifest signs, that this doctrine was believed by the Primitive Apostolical Church. On the other side, the Protestants finding the Presence of Christ's body by faith to be devoid of such difficulties, may by the very lightness thereof suspect it is not the doctrine which the Fathers concealed from Infidels, as more absurd to humane imagination than any other Mystery of Christian Religion.   

The second Consideration.  
This consideration is drawn from the quality of the difficultyes objected against this mystery, which be such, as a Christian in honour should neglect them 
(l) 
Unto this argument, showing God can cover the face of the whole world with thinner & thinner parts taken out of a flies wing, every Puny in our Universities saith the Minister. pag. 448. can distinguish betweme mathematical and potential division of a body, & physical and actual; Aristotle himself teaching us, that there is minima Caro, though there be not minimum corpus. Answer. By this reply you show yourself to be not so much as a Puny in Philosophy. For not knowing what you say, you grant unto your Adversary as much as he would prove, because you understand not the Philosophical terms you use. He did not say that the wing of the fly, is physically or actually divided into so many thin parts, as would cover the world, but only, that it is divisible into so many thin parts; but you do not deny, but there is so much potential or possible division in the flies wing. And if the division of a flies wing into so many thin parts as will cover the world, be potential and possible, I hope you will not deny but God can make the same actual; except you will say, that there is in the quantity of a flies wing more potentiality to be divided, then in God power to divide, so denying him to be Omnipotent.  
Secondly, your coming forth with Aristotle's minima caro, sed non minimum corpus, doth more & more bewray your Ignorance. For the Philosophical disputation de termino paruitatis, is de minimo naturali, whether a thing homogeneous, that is, whereof every particle is of the same kind with the whole, as water, fire, flesh, can be so little as it cannot be lesser or thinner by the course of nature; wherein many learned Divines hold the Negative part, that no flesh is so little, but it may be less by the course of nature. But in respect of the Divine power, no Christian Philosopher doth hold there is minima caro, flesh so little and thine, that God can not make the same lesser and thinner without end, and so with a flies wing cover the world. And whereas you jestingly require you may have respite not to believe Transubstantiation, until this vast world's Capcase be made of a flies wing; you may have your desire, so you can be content the mean time, to undergo the punishment they must endure, who will undertake to comprehend the Omnipotency of God within the CAPCASE of their idle brain.  . For if it be the part of a prudent & intelligent man, not to permit imagination to prevail against his reason, what a disgrace is it for a Christian that his faith should be conquered by these kind of difficultyes? For that the seeming absurdityes of this mystery be not in respect of natural reason, but merely of imagination, may hence appear, that some natural truths be in a manner as difficile and incredible; which will be seen, if we compare the four above mentioned difficulties, with the difficulties some truths, evident in nature, have.  
First, we cannot imagine, that the whole body of Christ can be contained in the compass of a small host. But it is not more incredible, that in a thing of small quantity, for example in the wing of a fly, there should be so many parts, as unfolded and laid together would cover the whole face of the world, both of heaven and earth: And yet it is demonstrable in Philosophy, that even in the wing of a fly, there are so many parts, as broad & long as the wing, though still th'inner and thinner, that Almighty God separating and unfolding them, may therewith cover the whole world. For certain it is, that some finite number of such parts so separated, each of them as long, and as broad as a flies wing, would cover the face of the whole world. Certain also it it that the wing of a fly is still divisible into more & more such parts that no finite number of them is assignable, but God may still separate from that wing a greater number without end. Therefore it is certain, that in the wing of a fly there is so much quantity as is sufficient to cover the face of the whole world both of heaven & earth, if God would but separate and unfold the same. Is not this secret of Philosophy as incredible to carnal imagination, as the being of Christ's body within a small host? We that cannot comprehend things we see with eyes, and feel with hands, certainly we shall have much ado at the day of judgement to justify our not believing any part of God's word, by reason of the seeming absurdityes thereof.  
Secondly, we cannot imagine the body of Christ to be really combined unto the consecrated forms, and not to be polluted by such indignities as may happen unto the forms; yet we have seen, or may see things able to make this not to seem incredible. For holy men often by prayer so purify their souls, and by contemplation bring their spirits to such an independency of their senses, that neither bitter meats offend their taste, nor loathsome scents their smell, nor shrill cries their hearing; yea burnings & torturings are not perceived, their spirit being eloyned, through divine unpolluted affection from the contagion of the body, unto the substance whereof it still remains most really united. This being so, cannot the glorious body of Christ (graced with most divine ornaments, flowing from the excessive bliss of the soul, and and thereby made spiritual, impassable, & unsearchable) be really present unto the forms of consecrated Bread, and yet immune, free, and wholly independent of any contagion or corruption that may happen to the forms, specially the body of Christ not being so strictly and substantially tied unto the forms, as the spirit to the body it informeth, but is present unto them as an Angel assistant is to the body wherein he worketh; what dishonour can it be to attribute unto Christ's most venerable body this spiritual manner of Angelical presence, yea rather a participation of the divine immensity? For as God by his incomprehensible immensity existes every where no less pure in the sink, then in the sun, no less sweet in the dunghill, then in a garden of odoriferous flowers: So the body of Christ by supernatural participation of his divine presence, is really upon earth in things visible invisible, in things hurtful impassable, in things noisome inviolable, in things impure immaculable, to his friends that receive him with love most sweet and comfortable, and overflowing in graces; but to the unworthy receiver present in a manner dead & senseless, as if he were not there at all. And as he that receives into his arms a body, wherein the spirit absorbed in contemplation, neither feeling nor felt, lieth enclosed, may be said to embrace the body without the spirit, which is in that body insensible, and as good as if it were not there: So they that receive unworthily, are sometimes said by the Fathers 
(m) August. tract. 26. in joan. & 25. Caeteri Apostoli manducaverunt panem Dominun, judas autem panem Domini. , to receive the Sacrament without the body of Christ, because though the body of Christ be really in the Sacrament they receive, yet he is there in a dead manner in regard of them, as if he were not there at all, because he stirs not up heavenly affections in them, nor makes them feel the workings of his grace, & love.  
Thirdly, we cannot imagine the same body can be in many places together at the same time, it is true; but as hardly can we imagine the soul to be in the head and in the feet of a man, one & the same, without division in itself; or, an Angel to be in two Towns of the Country whereof he is Precedent, as fare distant one from the other, as York from London. Also who can conceive God who is infinitely one & indivisible, to be both in heaven, and on earth at once? Of which incomprehensible manner of presence Saint Augustine saith 
(n) August. ep. 3. ad Volusian. : Miratur hoc meus humana, & quia non capit, fortasse non credit. What marvel that imagination fails us to apprehend the multiplied Presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, which is spiritual, Angelical, and supernatural, comparable with the divine, that S. Gregory Nissen 
(o) Greg. Nissen in orat. de Pasch.  sticks not to say: Sicut Divinitas replet mundum, & tamen una est, ita innumerabilibus locis offertur, & tamen unum corpus est? The body of Christ being glorious, is for operation as swift and agile as any thought, but a man's thought is so quick, that one may be by thought in two disjoined places at once, for example in London, & at Rome. Some Divines 
(p) Caiet. 1. p. q▪ 52. art. 2. Ferrar. 3. contra Gent. ca 65. Marsil. in 2. q. 2. ar. 2. Dionys. Cister. in 2. dist. 6. q. 1. art. 1. conclus. 6.  give such agility to Angels, that they can place themselves substantially where they please by a thought, & think that as their thoughts, so likewise their substances are so independent of corporal state, that they can be naturally in two distinct places, without being in the spaces interjacent But the agility of Christ's glorious body is more excellent and perfect as being supernatural, than the natural agility of Angels, yea then of thoughts; why then should we make any doubt, but he may be in disjoined different places at once?  
Fourthly, we find difficulty to conceive, that accidents existing separated from any substance, can perform the office of substance even to the nourishment of man's body: but we should perchance find as much difficulty to believe, that of a little Kernel of an apple a great Tree may be made, and nourished by the force and vigour proceeding from the same, did we not see by daily experience the same to be true? That ashes may be made glass; that stones in the stomach of a Dove; iron in the belly of an Ostrich be turned into flesh; that of a rotten bark of a tree falling into the water, should be bred & produced a perfect bird to me seems more incredible, then that God should make the accidents of bread separated from their substance to nourish man's body 
(*) The Minister here laboureth to show a difference betwixt the wonders of Nature, & the Miracles of the holy Eucharist, which is impertinent. For the Answerer doth not intent, that there is the same kind of strangeness in both, but argueth, That seeing in Nature such incomprehensible things be found, we ought not to deny the literal sense of God's Word, for any difficultyes that may occur. . For the dead bark of a tree may seem to have no more efficacy of itself to produce a living creature, specially so perfect a bird as a Barnacle, then have the accidents of bread to feed & breed the flesh of a living man: yea many Philosophers teach, & in my judgement convince, that in substantial generations where no cause coequal in perfection to the effect produced is present, God by the secret operation of his power, supplies the deficiency of natural causes; Why then should any man so much mislike our doctrine, that, in this mystery, where the substance of bread is wanting, God by the secret operation of his power, supplies the defect thereof; seeing by the opinion of many learned Philosophers, his Providence by the like secret special working, doth ordinarily, daily, and hourly supply the manifold defects of substantial secondary agents. Neither is the manner how God can do this, difficile to explicate. For he may enable the quantity of bread to receive and sustain the working of man's nutritive power, & when in that quantity there is the last accidental disposition to the form of flesh, he can secretly produce again materiam primam, that was of the bread, and combine the same with the prepared quantity, & the substantial form of flesh; what reason is there, why God may not do this, yea do it sooner than we speak it?  
Wherefore the seeming absurdityes of this mystery, being (as I have showed) merely imaginary, and not like those against the Trinity, and the Incarnation, wherein not so much imagination as reason finds difficulty; it is the part not only of sincere Christian Faith, but also of a clear excellent wit, to contemn them, & not to permit wandering unruly fancy destitute of reason, to control our belief about the 
(*) The Minister here pag. 454. rails lustily, saying: That the Romists presumptuously forming Chimeras and Idols in the forge of their own deceived breast, deserve to be fed only with accidents, as the birds that pecked at painted grapes. All which is both blasphemous & simple: for what more impious then to term the literal sense of God's word concerning the mysteries of faith, such as our doctrine about the same is confessed to be, a Chimaera and Idol, framed in the forge of a deceived breast? What more silly, then to think the Protestants Sacrament, being a figure of Christ's body, & in substance but bread, a more substantial food of the soul, than the Catholics, which is in shape & show bread, in essence & substance the precious flesh of the Saviour? Be not Protestants rather the birds that peck at the picture figure, & shape of their soul's food? Is not the soul better fed with the literal, plain, & substantive sense of God's word, them by the figurative comments of men?  literal sense of Christ's words so many ways by the gravest testimonies of Antiquity recommended unto us.   

The third Consideration.  
Thirdly, to make Christians incline to believe this mystery so difficile to carnal Imagination, this Consideration may be very potent, to wit, that in believing the same on the one side there may be great merit and excellent Faith, if it be a truth, and on the other side, though (which is impossible) it should be false, yet in believing it, we shall not fall into any damnable error. For although we suppose this impossible case, yet what can be laid to our charge which we may not defend, and justify by all the rules of equity and reason? If we be accused, that we took bread to be the body of Christ, adoring the same as God, so committing Idolatry, we may defend, that both for soul and body we are innocent heerin. For seeing the body is not made guilty but by a guilty mind, even our body may plead not guilty, seeing our mind, our thoughts, our devotion were totally referred unto Christ, whom we truly apprehend by faith, as veiled with the accidents of bread, and so may repel the reproach of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bread-worshippers, with saying, — Quae vovit mens est, pani nil vovimus illâ.  
Neither did we believe that the bread was changed into Christ's body upon slight reasons, or moved by the fancies of our own head, but contrary to our fancies, out of reverence to the 
(q) The Minister here contradicting himself saith, that Transubstantiation is not involved in the literal sense of God's word. And further, that the same was never defined in General Counsels. For as the Arians would allow no Council to be lawful which condemned Arius, so with these men no Council is lawful upon which john Caluin will not bestow his Blessing. Otherwise, why should not the Lateran Council under Innocent the third, and the second Council of Nice celebrated above eight hundred years ago, where the substantive real presence is defined, and the figurative condemned, be lawful & general, in which both the Latin, and Grecian Church did concur to define?  express words of Christ, This is my body: A sense declared by most ancient Fathers, defined by many General Counsels, delivered by full consent of our Ancestors, so practised in the Church for many ages, without any known beginning; Finally, confirmed with the most credible & constant report of innumerable 
(r) The Minister saith, that these Miracles be but the lies of Friars, which he proves by a jest that was rife in the mouth of Wickliffifts, Est Frater, Ergo mendax. Answer. The miracles done in proof of the Corporall and substantial permanent presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, are related by most ancient Fathers and writers, of which many whole Towns, Cities, and Countries have been eye witnesses, as it were madness to question them. These may be read in joannes Garetius, who hath gathered them together, as also in judocus Coccius. The Proverb He is Friar, Ergo a liar, is true of such Friars as Martin Luther, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Friar Barnes, and the like founders and pillars of the fifth Gospel. And if the matter be looked into without passion, this inference, Est Minister, Ergo mendax, will seem more justifiable; even in Caluins' judgement, who saith, that most of them that show most zeal, are full of falsehood, fraud, & lying. Hierom Zanchius a famous Protestant in the Preface of his book contra Arianum Anonymun, saith of Ministers; That even they who are termed Pillars of the Gospel, are for the most part impudent lying companions, that outface the truth every way; thereupon exclaiming, O Tempora! O Mores!  most evident miracles. Can a Christian believe any point of religion upon surer grounds? And if God at the day of judgement will condemn none, but such as living in this world, wronged him in his honour; why should Catholics fear any hard sentence in respect of their prompt credulity of Transubstantiation, that is, of God's word taken in the plain proper sense? Is it any injury to his verity, that they deny their senses, correct their imaginations, reform their discourses, abnegate their judgements, rather than not to believe what to them seemeth his word? Is it injury to his power to be persuaded that he can do things incomprehensible without number? put the same body in innumerable places at once? make a body occupy no place, & yet remain a quantitative substance in itself? Is it injury to his charity to think, that love unto men makes him unite himself really, and substantially with them, & to be (as it were) incarnate anew in every particular faithful man, entering really into their bodies, to signify efficaciously his inward conjunction by spirit unto their souls? Finally, is it any injury to his wisdom to believe, that to satisfy on the one side the will of his Father, that would have him ever in heaven sitting at his right hand; on the other side, the ardency of his own affection unto men, desiring to be perpetually with them, he invented a manner how still remaining glorious in heaven, he might also be continually on earth with his Church; secretly, not to take from them the merit of Faith, yet to afford full satisfaction to his own love; really, by continual personal presence, and most intime conjunction with them?  
On the other side, it imports them that think Transubstantiation impossible, or that God cannot put the same body in different places at once, to consider, if they err (easy it is for men to err that with the compass of their understanding measure the power of God) how dangerous & inexcusable their error will prove, when they shallbe called to give unto their omnipotent maker a final account, particularly of this doctrine, so much derogating from him? Let them think how they will answer if God lay to their charge the neglect of that most prudent & reasonable advice which S. Chrysostome [Homil. 83. in Mat.] giues: Let us believe God, (saith he) let us not resist his word, though the same seem absurd unto our cogitation & sense, for his speech doth surpass our reason and sense, his words cannot deceive us, but our senses be deceived easily and often. How will they reply, if they be pressed with the interrogatory which S. Cyrill l. 12. in joan. makes unto such unbelievers: If thou couldst not comprehend the divine operation of God, why didst thou not accuse the imbecility of man's wit, rather than the omnipotency of God? Or how (disputing & proposing so many Arguments against God's power, rejecting or questioning the same, because they could not understand it) never called they to mind the saying 
(s) August. lib. 12. the Ciuit. c. 11.  of Saint Augustine: Ecce quibus argumentis Divinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas, quam possidet vanitas?     

THE SEAVENTH POINT.  
Communion 
(*) Note, that the holy Eucharist is both a Sacrifice, and a Sacrament. A Sacrifice as offered unto God for thansgiving, and remission of sins. A Sacrament as received by men for the food & sanctification of their souls. It is a Sacrifice, because a lively and express representation of Christ's bloody Sacrifice on the Crosse. It is a Sacrament, because representing, & exhibiting Christ jesus, as the full, and all-sufficient food of the soul. Hence the Eucharist, as a Sacrifice 〈…〉 entire in the 〈◊〉 oblation under the form of bread, without oblation in the form of wine, because the oblation in the form of bread without wine, doth not expressly & distinctly represent Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross by the effusion of his blood. But the Eucharist, as a Sacrament, is entire in one only kind, to wit, under the form of bread, because the form of bread only doth represent, contain, and exhibit the true body of our Lord, which is a full ●nd all-sufficient food to nourish the soul unto eternal life, as saith our Saviour: He that eateth this bread liveth for ever. joan. 6.59. By this the Ministers Cavilling pag. 460. & 461. and throughout this whole Controversy, is answered; for he only proves (at the most) that the Eucharist as a Sacrifice, is not entire in one kind.  under one kind: & the abetting of it by concomitancy.  
YOUR most Excellent Majesty in the proposition of this Controversy shows your deep insight into Theological difficultyes, perceauing the main ground whereon the Catholic opinion of the lawfulness of communion under one kind standeth, to wit, Concomitancy, which being granted, Communion under one kind is justified.  

The doctrine of Concomitancy proved. §. 1.  
THE doctrine of Concomitancy is, that under the form of bread, not only the body of Christ, but also his precious blood and blessed soul are truly, and really contained; the body directly and by virtue of the words of consecration, the blood and the soul consequently. For being contained within the body of Christ, they must needs concomitate, that is, follow the body in what place soever the same be 
(t) The Minister pag. 460. saith, The blood of Christ cannot properly he said to be in his body by Concomitancy, (for then it were accidentally therein) but as a part in the whole. Answer. We do not say, blood is accidentally in the body of Christ or by concomitancy, but that it is by concomitancy in the same place with the body. As the soul is not by concomitancy in the body of a living man, but as a part in the whole, yet as Philosophy teacheth Movetur per accidens cum corpore, it is moved, and removed accidentally, and by concomitancy with the body; You must then distinguish, To be in the body, from To be in the same place with the body. The soul is in the body by direct substantial union therewith, but in the place of the body the soul is not directly, but by concomitancy, in regard of her conjunction with the body, which is directly in place. In this manner the soul, and blood of Christ's be directly and substantially in his body, yet only by concomitancy in the Sacrament under the form of bread, where the body only is directly by virtue of the words. In this sense also the Deity is in the Sacrament by Concomitancy. For the Deity is not expressly signified to be in the Sacrament by virtue of the words, which only affirm Christ his body to be present; yet is the Deity present unto, and united with the body present by the virtue of the word. Hence the Deity is present by Concomitancy, so that though otherwise it were not present, yet should it be here present by Concomitancy, because inseparably joined with a thing that is present. . Neither can any that acknowledgeth the Real presence, deny this Concomitancy without falling into many absurdities, as I prove by three Arguments.  
First, he that acknowledgeth the Real presence of Christ's sacred Body under the form of bread, and denies Concomitancy, doth in his belief separate the blood, & soul of Christ from his body: But to separate either Christ's Divinity from his Humanity, or soul from his body, or his blood from his flesh, is unlawful. For such a believer doth dissolve and destroy Christ jesus, and so is one of the number of them that Saint john condemneth, Omnis spiritus qui soluit jesum non est ex Deo, & hic est Antichristus 
(u) 1. joan. 4.3. . And this Argument hath greatest force in their opinion, who shall think that Christ leaves heaven for the time, & comes down really according to his body and blood; for how can the body of Christ come down from heaven without blood and soul, unless he come down dead? And so Christ should be not only mystically & figuratively, but truly & really massacred in the Sacrament, and the Eucharist be a bloody sacrifice, and not incruent, as the Father's term it.  
Secondly, the Priest in the person of Christ who is glorious in heaven, or rather Christ being glorious in heaven, by the mouth of the Priest, saith, This is my body: but a body devoid of blood without soul, and consequently dead and senseless, is not the body of Christ as he is now glorious in heaven, which hath blood in the veins, and is informed and glorified by a most excellent soul. Therefore Christ glorious in heaven cannot say truly, that a body void of blood sense and soul is his body, but soul, life, and blood must needs follow, and concomitate his body wheresoever it be.  
Thirdly, if under the form of bread were only the body of Christ, and his soul and blood were not by Concomitancy there, the Communicants should receive the body of Christ, but not truly Christ, as our Adversaries grant; Caluin specially saying; 
(x) Caluin l. 4. Instit. c. 7. n. 35.  Quis sanus & sobrius, Christi Corpus Christum esse sibi persuade at? And again: 
(y) Ibidem n. 74.  Ne fando quidem auditum est corpus Christi aut sanguinem, Deum & hominem appellari. But 
(z) Ambros. l. de ijs qui i●it. In illo Sacramento Christus est.  Fathers affirm most constantly that not only the body of Christ, but also Christ 
(a) Hilarius l. 8. de Trinit. Nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus.  himself is in the Sacrament; That we take in the Dominical refection, the Word made flesh; That 
(b) Cyrill. Alexand. l. 4. in joan. c. 15. Per hanc benedictionem mysterij ipsum filium Dei suscipimus.  by the consecration of the mysteries we receive the very Son of God; That 
(c) Cyrill. Hieros'. Catech. 5. mystag.  under the form of bread we lodge within us the sovereign King; & that 
(d) Chrysost. homil. 83. in cap. 26. Matth. & hom. 24. in 1. ad Cor.  we see Christ, feel Christ, eat Christ, non regium puerum, sed ipsum unigenitum Dei Filium. An hundred other places might be brought where the Fathers call the consecrated bread Christ, & consequently they did not think there was the mere body without blood and soul, seeing, as Caluin doth confess, It is an absurd manner of speech to term Christ the mere body of Christ: And such a form of speech was never heard of hitherto in the world. Ergo, Concomitancy, that is, Christ's real & entire body, soul, flesh, blood to be under the form of bread, was acknowledged by the Fathers. 
(*) 
The Minister pag. 462. proposeth this argument against Concomitancy, which he thinks to be so strong and glorious, as he sets the same in a distinct letter, & each proposition in a distinct line, to call the eye of the Reader upon it.  
Whatsoever is received in the Sacrament was before offered to God on the Crosse. But the body of Christ having soul and blood in it by Concomitancy was not offered to God upon the Crosse. Ergo, at this day soul and blood be not in the body of Christ by Concomitancy etc.  
I answer. This argument serves as a mirror, wherein Learned men may see and admire our Ministers want both of Philosophy, and Logic. His want of Philosophy in not distinguishing the being by Concomitancy in the body, from being by Concomitancy in the place where the body is. The body of Christ neither on the Cross, nor in the Eucharist hath soul & blood in it, and united with it by Concomitancy, yet the body of Christ not only in the Sacrament, but also on the Cross had soul and blood present with it by Concomitancy, or consequence. For the soul being substantially united with the body, and blood contained within the body, they were consequently enforced to be together with the body in the same place on the Crosse.  
Hence the Ministers argument is turned against himself: That body is received in the Eucharist, which was offered to God on the Cross; but Christ's body having soul and blood in the same place with it by Concomitancy, was offerred to God on the Crosse. Ergo, the body of Christ having soul in the same place with it by Concomitancy, is in the Sacrament.  
His ignorance in Logic is likewise very specious and notable, to present unto the world, with so great solemnity, an idle Sophism, and Fallacy, termed by the Logicians, Figurae dictionis. Of which fallacy one kind is, when from the substantial word one argueth unto the accidental. As for example, this Sophism: What meat soever thou didst buy in the market, thou dost eat at dinner: but thou didst buy raw flesh in the market: Ergo, thou dost eat raw flesh at dinner. And this likewise: What fingers soever thou hadst being a Child, thou hast now being a man: thou hadst little fingers being a Child: Ergo, thou hast little fingers now being a man. Just of the same frame & fashion is our Minister's argument. What soever is received in the Sacrament was offered on the Cross: A body that had not blood in it by Concomitancy, was offered on the Cross: Ergo, a body not having blood in it by Concomitancy is received in the Sacrament. If this form be good, one may prove that we do not now receive the body of Christ risen from death. Whatsoever is received in the Sacrament was offered on the Cross: A body having soul and blood in it by virtue of resurrection from death to life, was not offered on the Cross: Ergo, a body risen from death, or having soul and blood in it by virtue of resurrection from death, is not received in the Sacrament. Here your Ladies may see with what Baberyes you delude their Ignorance arguing from the Substantial unto the Accidental term. For though Christ's body received in the Sacrament be the same that was offered on the Cross in respect of substance, it doth not follow that therefore it is the same also in respect of accidents, qualities, and circumstances. Hence his body may now have blood and soul by Concomitancy with it in the Sacrament, though it had not had blood & soul by Concomitancy with it on the Crosse.    
This principle supposed, which is no less certain than the true real presence, I infer the lawfulness of Communion under one kind (to wit under the sole form of bread) by this Argument. If communion under one kind be not against the substance either of Christ's institution, or of his Sacrament, or his precept, or of the practice of the primitive Church, it is lawful, justifiable, & for just reasons may be commanded by the Church. This proposition is true▪ because there neither are other causes of dislike that may not be reduced to these four; neither doth Christ's Institution, or Precept, or the Primitive practice bind us to keep them, further than in substance, the accidental circumstances of institutions, Sacraments, precepts, primitive Customs being variable according to the variable disposition of things unto which the Church militant in this life is subject. Now I assume, Concomitancy being supposed, it may be made evident that Communion under one kind is not against the substance either of Christ's institution, or of the Sacrament, or of his precept, or of the primitive practice. For the substance of these four obligations is one & the same, to wit, that we be truly & really partakers of the body and blood of our Saviour, which is 
(e) The Minister p. 467. saith: Though Concomitancy be granted, yet Communion in one kind, is not justified, because the blood by Concomitancy is received in the veins of the body, not as shed out of the veins: But people must receive the blood of Christ represented as shed, which is not done, but by receiving the Cup. Answer. The essence of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice, is to represent the effusion of our Lord's blood, & so can not be entire in one kind. But the essence of the Eucharist as a Sacrament is to represent the body and blood of our Lord, as the food of the soul. But in either kind, the body and blood to be sufficient food of the soul, the jesuit proveth: so that people be not bound so receive the blood represented distinctly, and expressly as shed, but only the Priest that doth sacrifice.  fully done by Communion under one kind, as I will show in the four consequent Sections.   

Communion under one kind not against the substance of the Institution of Christ. §. 2.  
DIVINE Institution is an action of God, whereby he gives Being unto things, with reference unto some special end. This end is twofold, the one corporal and temporal for which God hath instituted agreeable and convenient means. That men may be borne into this world, he did institute marriage: and for maintenance of the said life being had, he ordained many sorts of meat. The other end is spiritual, for which God hath instituted Sacraments; as, for the first obtaining of grace and spiritual life, the Sacraments of Baptism & Penance; for the preserving of grace & increasing therein, particularly the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  
That a man be bound to use the Institution of God, two things are required. First that the end thereof be necessary, and he bound to endeavour the attaining thereof. Hence it is that though marriage be the institution of God appointed to propagate mankind; yet every man is not bound to marry, because he is not bound to propagate mankind, when there be others that do abundantly comply with that duty to which mankind is in general bound, Multiplicamini, & replete terram [Gen. 1.18.] Secondly, where the end of the institution is such as every man must endeavour the attaining thereof, to the end that a man be bound to use that institution, it is further required, that the thing instituted be necessary for attaining of that end. For if there be other means ordained sufficient for the attaining of that end, a man is not bound to use such particular divine institutions. For example, man is bound to maintain his corporal life so long as Nature will permit, and to this end God created variety of fruits, yet no man is bound by divine institution to eat fruits, there being other means instituted for the maintenance of life 
(f) The Minister not being able to refel, what the jesuit here saith, That because Christ did Institute the Sacrament in both kinds for the refection of souls, it doth not follow that men are bound by force of this Institution, to receive in both kinds, as men are not bound to eat both fruit and flesh, though God did institute both, for the maintenance of man's life: Not being, I say, able so refel this, he laboureth to prove, that Communion in one kind is against the substance of the Sacrament: which is impertinent in this place, that controversy being handled in the next paragraph; and what the Minister here saith is there answered, as in the proper place. .  
Applying this to our purpose, It is apparent, that by the force of divine institution no man is bound to use Communion under both kinds. For though the end why Christ did institute the Sacrament in both kinds be necessary, and all must endeavour the attaining thereunto, to wit, maintenance, and increase of grace the life of the soul, yet there be other means by which we may attain to this end. Whence it is, that learned Divines hold that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, is not necessarium, necessitate medij (as they speak) that is, the use thereof is not a necessary means for the maintenance of spiritual life, but a man wanting means of sacred Communion may by other means preserve himself in the state of grace. And though we should suppose that actual communion were a necessary means to preserve spiritual life, yet communion under one kind is abundantly sufficient thereunto. For the Sacrament in the sole form of bread, containing the Author and fountain of life, whole & entire according to body, soul, blood, and his infinite person, is abundantly sufficient for the refection of the soul, yea no less sufficient than Communion under both kinds. For this one kind containeth within it nothing less than what is contained in both, & Christ promiseth life to sole manducation 
(g) joan. 6. v. 58. : Qui manducat me, & ipse vivit propter me; And unto the sole reception of his body under the form of bread 
(h) Ibid. v. 55. & 59 : Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita, & qui manducat hunc panem vivet in aeternum. If the tree of life in the midst of Paradise 
(i) Gen. 2.9. , if the Manna 
(k) Exod. 16.15.  of the jews, the bread of Angels did suffice to nourish the body without drink, why should any deny this soule-nourishing sufficiency unto the sole body of Christ, were the same alone in the bread, but specially, being there conjoined with his soul & his most precious blood?  
Hence it is apparent, that without any just cause some Protestants inveigh against the Council of Constance, as professing to contradict the precept of Christ, because it decreed Sess. 13. That the Sacrament may be lawfully given under one kind, 
(l) The Minister here spendeth two pages in railing against the Council of Constance, but hath not one word of reason in his discourse. He supposeth without proof, what the jesuit hath by many reasons refelled, that Christ commanded Communion in both kinds, and that the jesuits distinction of Institution from Precept is ulcerous, & a plaster of fig leaves and the like words. He saith also that Christ's Institution is a virtual precept: which is true, in respect of things pertaining to the substance of the Sacrament; but both kinds be not of the substance of the Sacrament, as the jesuit in the next paragraph, doth demonstrate.  Non obstante quod Christus in utraque specie illud instituerit, & Apostolis administraverit: Notwithstanding Christ's institution, and administration thereof in both kinds to his disciples. This their bitterness proceeds from zeal without knowledge, not distinguishing the Institution of God, from his Precept, which are very distinct. For the precept of both kinds (if Christ gave any) doth bind, whether both kinds be necessary for the maintenance of man's soul in grace or no: but the Institution of both kinds for the maintenance of spiritual life, doth not bind further than the thing instituted, to wit, Communion under both kinds is necessary for the maintaining of spiritual life; for which end one kind being sufficient, as I have showed, Christ's institution of both kinds doth not enforce the use of both. If God should have commanded, the use both of meat and drink to every man, than every man should be bound not only to eat, but also to drink, though he had no necessity thereof: but now, seeing God hath not given such a precept, a man that can live by meat without ever drinking, is not bound to drink, non obstant●, that God did institute both eating & drinking, for the preservation of life in every man.   

Communion under one kind, not against the substance of the Sacrament. §. 3.  
A Sacrament of the new Testament being a visible efficacious sign of invisible grace, four things are necessary to concur to the substantial constitution thereof, which I will set down in order, & together show that they are all found in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, given under one kind 
(m) The Minister pag. 4●6. saith, this quadripart argument is Sophistical as if the ●esuit should argue thus: Head, breast▪ back, legs and arms are not of the substance of human nature. Ergo, a man without legs and arms is a perfect man, according to the first creation of mankind. I need add no more, but smile. Answer. You smile when you should rather blush for shame, in not having so much judgement as to conceive your adversary's convincing argument. For he doth not dispute as you feign, but in this sort. As he that hath soul and body, with members & organs for all the ends and functions of man, is a perfect and entiere man; so the Sacrament in one kind, if it have matter and form sufficient for all the ends & functions of the Sacrament, is a full & entire Sacrament. But such is the Sacrament in one kind, as he doth largely prove, descending unto the particular ends. Is this a discourse to be smiled at, or answered by laughing? .  
First, there is required some Element that is, a visible & sensible thing or action without which no Sacrament can subsist, termed by Divines Materia Sacramenti. This substantial part is not wanting in the Sacrament given in one kind, in which there is consecrated bread visible and sensible in the accidents thereof, and manducation, an action also visible and apparent to sense.  
The second thing required to the substance of the Sacrament, is Verbum, the word, that is, a form of speech showing the divine and supernatural purpose unto which the element is consecrated. Neither is that part wanting in the Sacrament given under one kind, which is consecrated by the words of Christ, This is my body, and the Theological principle taken out of Saint Augustin verified, accedit verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum.  
The third thing is Signification, every Sacrament signifying some divine effect of grace, which God worketh by the application thereof, and the sensible sign even by nature hath, as Saint Augustine [Epist. 23.] noteth, some proportion, & analogy to signify that divine effect which to produce, it is assumed by God's omnipotency as an instrument. This sacred signification which the holy Eucharist hath, is of three kinds, and all three are found in the Sacrament given under one kind. First this Sacrament is a sign of spiritual food for the nourishment, and refection of the Soul, which signification is manifestly found in Communion under one 
(n) 
The Minister very often (though out of place as pag. 470. li. 20. & pa. 442.) objects. If Communion in both kinds, be not of the substance of the Sacrament, why should Communion in bread, or wine be of the substance of the Sacrament? Why may not Communion in Cheese be truly a Sacrament, as well as Communion in one kind? Answer. First diverse Protestant's namely Beza and Caluin (see Beza epist. 2. & epist. 25.) teach, that though Christ did institute the Sacrament in bread and wine, yet in case that bread and wine be wanting, one may use some other proportionable Element, as Cheese and Beer. Might you not employ your talon in railing upon these men, better than on the Council of Constance?  
Secondly, The Protestants allowing of Cheese in lieu of Bread, and beer in lieu of wine, is to change the substance of the Element, wherein Christ did institute the Sacrament, and consequently to change the substance of the Institution and Sacrament, bringing in an Institution and Sacrament of another substance. But to receive the Sacrament in the kind of bread without wine, is not to change the substance of the Element, but only (whereas the Sacrament for more complete signification was instituted in two elemtens, as for the same reason it was instituted after supper) to use the one element without the other, the whole nature of the Sacrament sufficient for all the functions thereof, being found in one kind, as the jesuit doth here demonstrate.   kind. For the Eucharist doth signify this effect of spiritual nutrition, because it is a sign of Christ, the bread of life, the food of Angels, the fountain of grace; but by the sole form of bread Christ is signified, as present according to his most Sacred body, and consequently as most sufficient to feed and refresh the soul.  
Another signification of this Sacrament, is union and conjunction between the faithful, as being members of the same body whereof Christ is head, & fellow-members one with another, as S. Paul declares [Rom. 12.4.] which conjunction the Sacrament in the form of bread doth signify. For bread being a compound of many grains of wheat massed together in one loaf, & also made of flower and water mingled one with another, signify the perfect union both of the Church with Christ, & of the faithful that are in the Church one with another, as Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10. testifyes, unum corpus sumus quotquot de uno pane participamus, where he makes no mention of Wine, the Sacrament in the form of bread being alone able to show & work this signification.  
This Sacrament doth also signify the passion and death of our Saviour, which death and passion is showed and represented by Communion under one kind 
(o) The Minister saith pag. 479. That both kinds do more lively represent Christ's Passion, than one only. Answer. What is this to the purpose, to prove the Sacrament in one kind substantially imperfect? Baptism by plunging the Child into water, represents Christ's death and resurrection, more lively than Baptism by sprinkling; yet is Baptism by aspersion a full and entire Sacrament. . For receiving the Sacrament in the form of wine only, we have a sufficient ground to remember the blood of Christ that was in his passion shed, and separated from his body. Likewise by participating of the consecrated bread we may lively conceive the body of Christ, as it was deprived of the most precious blood by the effusion thereof on the Cross; whereupon Christ (as Saint Paul 
(p) 1. Cor. 11. v. 14.15.  testifyes, did after the consecration of each kind, particularly recommend the memory of his passion, as knowing that in each of them alone was a sufficient monument and memorial thereof.  
The fourth thing required to the substance of a Sacrament, is Causality, to wit, to work in the soul the spiritual effects it signify. This Causality cannot be wanting to the Sacrament under one kind, wherein is contained the fountain of spiritual life. For the cause why the Sacrament in both kinds giveth grace and refresheth the soul, is, that Christ is assistant unto them, bound by his promise at the presence of sensible signs, to work proportionably spiritual effects in disposed souls. But Christ is in the Sacrament under the form of bread, & he is able through infinite power, and bound by inviolable promise, to work the effect of grace, preserving unto life eternal the worthy participant of this Sacrament 
(q) Hence is refuted what the Minister saith pag. 478 without any proof: That the promise of grace is not made to one kind only.  under the form of bread, Qui manducat hunc panem, vivit in aeternum. joan. 6.55. Not any doubt than may be made, but the Sacrament in one kind is full, entire, complete in substance, & by participation thereof prepared consciences do receive the benefit of celestial favour that conserveth the life of the soul, with daily increase in perfection 
(*) The Minister very often objecteth as pag. 479. & 502. and elsewhere: That according to the Tenet of some Schoolmen, greater benefit of grace it reaped by communion in both kinds. Answer. First Catholic Divines of greater number & learning hold the contrary. Secondly, This is impertinent: for the question is not whether Communion in both kinds be of greater perfection, but whether it be necessary unto Salvation. Thirdly, if Communion in both kinds give more grace, yet this excess may be easily equalled by other diligences, as by often receiving in one kind, and by obedience to the Church etc. The Minister 472. proveth Communion in both kinds to be of greater profit, because it is an act of obedience unto Christ's precept, Drink ye all of this, but obedience is better than Sacrifice, 1. Sam. 15. 22. His argument supposeth, without proof, what the jesuit hath showed to be most false, and so may be with more truth turned to the contrary: for to receive in one kind is an act of obedience unto the Church, whereof Christ saith, He that heareth not the Church, let him be to thee as an heathen and a publican. But obedience is better than Sacrifice: Therefore more spiritual profit, and merit is gotten by Communion in one kind. .   

Communion under one kind, not against Christ his Precept. §. 4.  
ALTHOUGH Communion under both kinds pertain not to the substance of the Sacrament, yet if Christ did specially command the same, we are bound to that observance, and should by communion under one kind sin, not against his Sacrament and Institution, but against a special divine precept.  
Hence we may probably infer, that Christ gave no special precept thereof, because Christ hath commanded no more concerning the use of the Eucharist, than what by the substance of the institution & nature of the Sacrament we are bound unto, leaving accidental circumstances belonging thereunto to be ordained by the Apostles and Pastors of the Church, as S. Augustin noteth saying 
(r) Augustin. ep. 118. : Our Lord did not appoint in what order the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be taken afterward, but left authority to make such appointments unto his Apostles, by whom he was to dispose and order his Churches. So clearly doth S. Augustine speak, that Christ gave no commandments to his Church, concerning the use of the Sacrament, besides such as are contained in the substance of the Institution, and of the Sacrament; of which kind Communion under both kinds cannot be, as hath been proved, which will further appear by pondering the places alleged to prove a Precept.  
The words of Christ, Do this in remembrance of me, do no ways infer a Precept of both kinds. First, because he said, Do this in remembrance of me, absolutely only of the Sacrament in the form of bread, of the form of wine not absolutely, but conditionally, Do this as often as you drink in memory of me, that the Adversaries of the Church might not have any the least plausible show to complain of her neglecting God's Precept 
(s) The Minister in this place is very bitter, terming the jesuit Vermine, infatuated Romanist, and the like. But in lieu of answering his argument, he confirms the same, as is showed in the Censure, Sect. 4. §. 5. . For this precept Do this, being the only precept given by Christ to his Church, as shall afterwards appear, and given absolutely of the form of bread, conditionally of the form of wine, there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing against Christ's precept by Communion under one kind. Secondly, suppose Christ spoke these Imperative words Do this, after the giving of the Cup, yet are they to be understood with this restriction, Do this, that is, all things that belong to the essence and substance of this action in memory of me. For if we extend the precept Do this, further than the substance of the action, unto the accidentary circumstances thereof, in which Christ did then institute and give the Sacrament, many absurdityes will follow. For, by this rule we must always celebrate and receive the Eucharist after supper as Christ did, specially seeing this circumstance of after supper, was chosen of Christ, as being very proper & mysterious. For thereby is signified, that this is the sacrifice which succeeds the Paschall Lamb, that was offered in the Evening, the sacrifice whereof the royal Prophet saith 
(t) Psal. 140. v. 2.  in the person of Christ, Elevatio manuum mearum sacrificium vespertinum: The sacrifice, which instituted in the evening of the world, was to continue until the end thereof. We should also by this rule be bound, still to celebrate in Azime, that is, unlevened bread, in which Christ did celebrate, and give the Sacrament, saying, Do this; which circumstance was also mystical and signify the purity of our Saviour's virginal body & person, which was without any Leaven of sin. And beside, the Priest might not give the Sacrament unto any but such whose feet he had washed afore, seeing Christ gave the Eucharist with this preparative circumstance, which doubtless is very pertinent and mysterious to signify, with what purity of conscience men ought to approach unto the sacred Table. If to bind men to observe these circumstances of our Saviour's action, though mysterious and Sacramental, were absurd (as without doubt it is most absurd) than we must not extend the precept Do this, to the circumstances of Christ's action, but acknowledge that the precept Do this, only includes the doing of that which pertains to the substance of the Sacrament, and so not to the giving of both kinds, the substance thereof being entire in one only kind, as hath been proved. 
(u) The Minister's ignorance and simplicity in answering these arguments is discovered in the Censure, Sect. 1. §. 2.   
The second text much urged for the giving of the Cup unto all men, is the words of our Saviour, Bibite ex hoc omnes, wherein some note our Saviour's providence saying, that he foreseeing that some would take the Cup from the Laity, granting them the consecrated bread, said of the Cup Bibite ex hoc omnes, but not of bread Manducate ex hoc omnes. I answer; the words of our Saviour be plain, Drink ye all of this. But the difficulty is to whom they are spoken, & who are those all? Luther would have all men for whom the blood of Christ is shed, whence it follows, that as the blood of Christ was shed for all men, even Infidels, jews, Turks, Infants, the Cup also should be given unto all these, which to say were very absurd. Others restrain the words All, to the faithful come to the years of discretion, who must drink of the Cup all of them. But what shall we say of them that are by nature Abstemij, who cannot endure the taste of any wine, yet are not to be excused from the Sacrament?  
Wherefore the truth is, that these words were spoken unto all the Apostles, and to them all only. And though it be enough for Catholics to say it, and put their adversary's to prove their pretended Precept, which they call of the eternal King, for the Cup; and so long as they cannot clearly convince the contrary, good reason the word of the Church defined by Counsels should stand: yet ex abundanti, we can very probably show out of the sacred Text, that the particle all concerns all the Apostles only. First, what one Evangelist [Mat. 26.27.] saith, was commanded unto all, Bibite ex hoc omnes, drink ye all of this, another relates to have been answerably performed by them all [Matth. 14.23.] Biberunt ex eo omnes, all drank thereof; but the second all, is restrained to all the Apostles and to them all only. What reason then is there to extend the words, Drink ye all of this, further than to all the Apostles? Secondly, these words, Accipite, 
(*) The Minister p. 490. saith, If Bibite do not import a precept, that the people receive the Sacrament in the form of wine, them Manducate doth not enforce a precept, that they receive under the form of bread, and so they shall be bound to receive neither in one kind nor in both. Answer. The word Manducate, was spoken personally to the Apostles only, as much as Bibite, and so by virtue of this word we cannot bind the people to receive under the form of bread. Notwithstanding by other texts of Scripture we prove than to be bound to receive by eating the Sacred bread. For the precept do this in remembrance of me, was spoken only after the consecration of the bread, as appears by the Gospel, But yourself say pag. 490. lin. 7. That these words were spoken to the People respectively, and in part, to wit, that they receive, though not consecrate, & administer the Sacrament in the form of bread. Therefore though the word Manducate, do not, yet other words of the Institution do enforce a precept to receive in the form of bread.  manducate, bibite; Take, eat, drink, were certainly spoken unto the same persons; and they run so together in rank, that no man can with probability make the one outrun the other. But the Command Accipite, which signify take with your hands (for it is a precept distinct from mandacate, which is, take with your mouth) was given to the Apostles only, not unto all the faithful; else we must say, that all Communicants are bound to take the consecrated bread & Cup with their hands. Who ever heard of such a precept in the Christian Church?  
The third reason is, because there was a peculiar, and personal cause, why Christ should give that peculiar counsel or admonition (for the Imperative word doth not ever signify a precept, but often an advice, or a permission, as your Majesty well knows) to his Apostles at that time 
(x) When the final cause & end of the precept is personal, than the sense of precept is personal. The end of Christ's saying, Drink ye all of this, was personal, to wit, that all the Apostles should drink of the same individual Cup, without new consecration & filling. Ergo, the sense of the precept is personal, & only concerns those twelve persons. , to wit, because he would have them all not only drink of his blood, but also would have them drink of the same Cup, without filling & consecrating the same anew. This is more manifest in the Protestants opinion, who think the Chalice whereof Christ said in S. Matthew, Bibite ex hoc omnes, to be the same whereof he said by 
(y) Luc. 22.18.  Saint Mark, Accipite, dividite inter vos, non enim bibam ampliùs de hoc genimine vitis. For this being supposed, Drink ye all of this imports the same, as, Divide this Cup amongst you: But, divide this Cup amongst you, was a personal precept given to all the Apostles, importing that every one should drink but a part of that Cup, & that also in such a measure, as the Cup without new filling and consecration, might suffice for all to drink thereof 
(z) What the Minister saith, That the precept is, that all men drink not of the same individual, but of the same specifical Cup, is idle. For Christ's words, divide this Cup amongst you import drink ye all of this individual Cup. If one should bestow a quart of wine upon 4. people, saying; Divide this amongst you, were it not ridiculous to interpret his speech, that he means not, Drink ye all of this individual quart, but, of a quart of the same kind? If two of the company should drink up that whole individual quart, & being challendged by the other to have done against the order of the giver, who would not laugh, should they answer (as our Minister teacheth them) that Divide this Cup amongst you, imports not, drink all of this individual Cup, but of a Cup of the same kind? So that howsoever the Minister in this place do rail bitterly, and brag mightily, yet his Reply is ridiculous, and against common sense. . What, all men in the world? Or all Christians that should succeed them to the world's end? Christ never intended that one Cup for all, nor is it indeed divided, or parted with us, but the Apostles drank it up amongst them. Wherefore referring my sayings to your Majesty's learned censure, I conclude that to me it seems clear, that the precept, or rather direction, Drink ye all of this, was but personal, confined unto the number of all there then present. 
(*) 
The Minister pag. 489. brings four arguments to prove that the words of Christ, Drink ye all of this, command all the faithful to drink: which arguments though very poor ones, shall be answered. The first is, What Christ said to the Apostles, Paul said to the whole multitude of the faithful, 1. Cor. 11.28. Answer. S. Paul never said the words, drink ye all of this to all the faithful, yea the same are not found in all the Epistles of S. Paul: for 1. Cor. 11.28. he only saith, let a man prove himself, and so eat of that bread, and drink of that Cup, which words (as every man in his senses must needs perceive) do not import a precept to receive in both kinds, but only that no man receive in both kinds, or in one kind, without first trying himself, whether he be worthy. What you cite out of S. Hieroms commentary, Coenam Domini oportet esse communem, only signify that the Sacrament is for all men, aswell for the poor as for the rich, against which some Corinthians erred, scorning to receive in the Company of the poor.  
The second. If Communion in both kinds hath no foundation in God's word, than Communion in one kind hath no foundation in God's word. Answer. The lawfulness of Communion in both kinds, & the lawfulness of Communion in one kind, have foundation in God's word, and so to use the one or the other is not against the Divine law. But a Divine precept to receive in one kind, or in both kinds hath no foundation in God's word, as being but a fond Ministerial fancy. The word of God doth command to receive, at least under the form of bread, but to receive in the same only without the Cup, is no Divine precept.  
The third Argument. If the reason why the Apostles received the Cup was, because they were Priests, than all Priests being present at Communion ought to receive in both kinds though they administer not. Answer. If the reason why the Apostles received the Cup, was not because they were Priests, but as the jesuit proveth by the Gospel, because Christ would have it so, saying unto them, Drink ye all of this individual Cup, then is the Ministers argument idle and impertinent. Such also is his fourth argument wherein he would prove, that the Apostles were not made Priests by the words Do this: For suppose they were not made Priests by that speech, how will he thence conclude that the words Drink ye all of this, were not spoken personally unto the twelve, commanding them to drink all of the same individual Cupp? Besides in the two arguments to prove the Apostles were not made Priests by the word Do this, he shows intolerable ignorance.  
The first is, what force is there in these words, Do this, to conclude Priestly ordination? Answer. Are you a Doctor, and do not know that the word of the Almighty hath force to give men power, commission, authority to do what he doth command them to do? Christ by the word Do this, commanded the Apostles, to do what he had done, that is, to consecrate bread and wine into his body and blood, to receive and consume the same, to give them to the faithful. Ergo, by saying Do this, he gave them power commission, authority, not only to receive themselves, but also to consecrate, and give unto others his holy body and blood, which is the power and office of Priesthood.  
Secondly, If (say you) Do this, proveth Priesthood, then lay men are Priests when the words Do this, be spoken to them in part, or respectively. Answer. Do not you feel, how you bewray the weakness and vanity of your argument in your very proposition thereof? You say the words Do this, be spoken unto lay men but in part, that is, they command them to receive, but not to consecrate and give the Sacrament unto others. But the power, or commission only to receive the Sacrament is not Priesthood, but the commission to consecrate & administer the same unto others. Therefore the words Do this, do not make them Priests, to whom in part & respectively, but to whom they are spoken absolutely, & in the full sense.    
Another text of the Scripture some urge to prove, that Communion under one kind is commanded, to wit, the famous place out of S. john 
(a) joan. 6.59▪ : Except ye eat the flesh & drink the blood of the Son of Man, you shall not have life in you. Where our Saviour, under the penalty of losing eternal life, commands not only eating, but also drinking. Perchance your Majesty doth not stand much upon this, as not believing that Chapter of Saint john to concern the Sacramental sumption of our Saviour's flesh, as also some learned Catholics hold: Notwithstanding though we grant that Chapter to concern the eating and drinking in the Sacrament, as most of the Fathers teach, yet this objection may be easily satisfied by the former Principles. For, as we distinguish in the Sacrament, the substance & the manner, the substance being to receive the body of Christ, the manner, in both kinds by formal eating and drinking: So the same distinction is to be made in our Saviour's precept about this Sacrament. For howsoever his words may sound of the manner of receiving in both kinds, yet his intention is to command no more than the substance, to wit, that we really receive his body and blood, which may be done under one kind. This may be made clear by the Precept our Saviour hath given about another Sacrament, to wit Baptism, where though his words seem to define the manner, yet his mind was but to determine the substance. He saith 
(b) Matt. 28.18.  to his Apostles. Baptise all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. To Baptise signify the same, that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is, not to wet, or sprinkle with water, but to put and plunge into water by immersion, bathing them in water, in which respect Baptism is termed by the Apostle 
(c) Tit. 3.4.  the Laver, or bathe of the renovation of the holy Ghost. And yet because the Church teacheth Baptism by aspersion or sprinkling to be sufficient, & substantial Baptism, no less than Baptism by immersion, christians must, & do interpret the words of Christ, Baptise, that is, plunge into the water all Nations, to command only cleansing & washing in substance, not the manner thereof by immersion as his words may seem to import, and the Primitive Church did the first 600. year's practice.  
In like sort the words, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you, be preceptive no further than they signify real receiving of his body and blood, not the manner of both kinds, as may appear by the intention of the commandment. For, as Christ gave this precept of eating and drinking, only to the end that we might have life in us; so likewise he meant to command the same no further, than it was necessary to this end. But eating formally the body of Christ under the form of bread, and 
(d) What the Minister saith, that the receiving the blood of Christ Virtually, as being by Concomitancy joined with the body, is spiritual receiving, and not Sacramental, is false. For only just and holy men receive the body of Christ spiritually. But wicked men receive the blood of Christ together with his body by Concomitancy. Therefore this virtual receiving of Christ's blood, is corporal and Sacramental, and not only spiritual.  virtually and implicitly his blood as contained within his sacred body, sufficeth that we may have life in us, as he promiseth in the same place v. 59 He that eateth this bread shall live for ever; what necessity then is there to understand this precept of formal receiving in both kinds?  
But further I add, the coniunctive particle Et (and) frequently signify disiunctively the same that vel (or,) as, Argentum & aurum non est mihi 
(e) Act. 3.6. , and particularly of this Sacrament 
(f) 1. Cor. 11.20. , He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation, the sense is disiunctive, Eateth or drinketh unworthily? In this sort: Except you eat and drink, is to be understood disiunctively, Except you eat the flesh, or, drink the blood of the Son of man, you shall not have life in you. Which disiunctive sense to be the sense intended in this place, may be proved, because else Christ should be contrary to himself. For, seeing in the verse 59 of this Chapter he promiseth life eternal to eating only, Qui manducat hunc panem, vivit in aeternum. If in the 94. verse of the same Chapter, he require unto life everlasting eating and drinking both, he should in the space of a few lines speak contraries. And because this is impossible, 

THIs last answer is truest, & may be invincibly proved by Scripture. First, it cannot be denied that in Scripture the particle Et, and is taken disiunctively as the jesuit proveth in the text, & the Minister granteth. Secondly, whensoever two things are required to one & the same end, for which each a part is sufficient, than the particle Et, and, must needs be understood disiunctively to signify the same as Or. Because to strike Father apart, and to strike mother apart is worthy of death in a son, therefore the Scripture Exod. 21. saying, He that striketh his Father & mother let him dye the death, is to be understood disiunctively, his Father or mother. This might be proved by other innumerable instances, nor can so much as one example be brought where this rule faileth.  
This supposed, I assume: But the Scripture teacheth that the eating of Christ's body a part by itself is sufficient unto eternal life, john 6.52. The bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. And 58. he that eateth me shall live by me: and 59 he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. Ergo, the precept, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood you shall not have life in you, is understood disiunctively, Except you eat his flesh, or drink his blood.  
Hence the Fathers when they say, the Gospel commands drinking of blood, they mean disiunctively, because they ground the precept upon this text. The Author of the book De Coena Domini saith, the law forbade the eating of blood, but the Gospel commands drinking thereof, to wit disiunctively: & S. Austin. q. 57 In Levit. In the law men are forbidden so taste of the blood of the Sacrifices, but in the new law from taking the blood of our Sacrifice by way of nourishment, no man is forbidden, yea rather all are invited thereunto that will have life, to wit disiunctively, that is, they are invited, if they will have life, to eat the flesh, or drink the blood of our Saviour. Other places brought out of the Fathers by you, are partly from the purpose, partly falsifyed. From the purpose are the places which affirm no more, then that the body and blood of Christ be given in the Sacrament unto all. Chrysostom. hom. 18. in ●. ad Cor. the Cup as distributed unto all. Ignatius epist. ad Philadelphenses etc. Falsifyed is the Testimony of S. justine, pag. 497. but specially pag. 482. for thus you cite it. justinus Martyr saith, That Christians in his age distributed the sanctified bread & wine to every one present: and he addeth further; The Apostles taught that jesus did command them to do thus. You have corrupted his testimony two or three ways. First by omission, for S. justin doth mention not only wine, but also water. The Deacons (saith he) distribute unto every one present consecrated bread, wine, and water, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Wherefore if by this testimony you can prove it is a Divine precept to give wine, you prove also that it is a Divine precept to give water, & consequently yourselves to be transgressors of the Divine precept who give it not. That this your perversity to urge us with the testimony of S. justin, which makes not to the purpose, or else by the same yourself are condemned, might not appear, you falsified the place, citing what pleased you, and leaving out what served not your turn. Secondly, these words of S. justine, The Apostles taught that jesus commanded them so to do, are not joining upon the words that mention the giving of consecrated bread, wine, & water, as you would have men believe, but follow some 16. or 17. lines after, & are referred to another matter, to wit that Christ gave a Command to believe the real presence. S. justine his true words are these: We are taught, that as jesus Christ is made truly flesh by the word of God, in the same manner the Eucharistical food, by the prayer of the word proceeding from him, is the flesh and blood of jesus incarnate: for the Apostles in their writings termed the Gospels, do deliver, that jesus gave that preception unto them. For taking bread into his hands, and having given thankes he said; Do this in remembrance of me, this is my body. In like manner taking the Cup after thansgiving he said; This is my blood. Thus S. justine, by which it is evident that he saith that jesus gave a precept not of communion in both kinds, but of believing the Real Presence. Whence your third corruption is discovered, making S. justine to say, that jesus commanded to do thus; for, to do thus is added unto the text against the drift thereof, which manifestly speaketh of a precept to believe thus, not to do thus.  
In like manner you falsify S. Cyprian. Pag. 497. you produce these his words as making against Communion in one kind: In consecrating and administering the Cup unto the people, some do not that which our Lord did appoint and commanded: As who should say, these men did transgress the Divine precept, in that they gave not the Cup unto laymen. Had S. Cyprian meant this, he should not have said they sin in administering, but the contrary, they sin in not administering the Cup to the people. But S. Cyprian presently declares wherein they did transgress the Divine precept, to wit, in that some did consecrated pure water without wine, & others mere wine without water, and gave the same to the people. What is this against Communion in one kind? This place proveth they sin against the Divine law, who consecrate pure water in lieu of wine (as some Protestant's teach men to do;) and also, that they transgress the Divine precept who offer unto God, and give to the people pure wine without admixtion of water (as all Protestans commonly do.) But that Priests are bound by Divine precept to give consecrated wine to the people, this place doth not so much as insinuate, nor will any learned man cite it for the necessity of the Cup, except he have drunk too much of the Cup.   we interpret the place disiunctively, 
(*) The place of S. john explicated, with an Answer to the Testimonies of the Fathers.  Unless you eat or drink etc.   

Communion under one kind not against the practice of the Primitive Church. §. 5.  
CERTAIN it is, that the Primitive Church did very often and frequently use Communion under one kind, so that Laymen had by prescription a Right 
(i) Ad bibendum pocculum Dei iure communicationis admittimus. Cyp. l. epist. 2.  to receive in both kinds, yea they were bound thereunto by the obligation of Custom, not by divine precept. Also because the Manichees being impiously persuaded that Wine was the 
(k) Aug. de haeres. 46.  gall of the Prince of darkness, did 
(l) Leo serm. 4. de Quad.  superstitiously abstain from the Chalice, the Church in detestation of this error commanded, for a time, Communion under both kinds; upon which occasion Gelasius Pope made the Decree 
(m) Gelas. apud Gratian. de Consecrat. cap. Comperimus.  recorded by Gratian, Aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. And why? Because such Abstinents, nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi, that is, were superstitious, not abstaining out of any devotion, but out of an impious persuasion of the impurity of God's creature. Wherefore the crime with which some Protestants charge us, that our receiving under the sole form of bread, is to jump in opinion with the Manichees, we may (as D. Morton confesseth) reject as injurious, saying; That it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine, but the reason of their forbearance, that was judged heretical. Morton Protestant. Appeal. lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 140. 
(*) 
Against this explication of the place of Gelasius, it is objected, that the same doth not agree with the reason of the Canon. For Gelasius saith, men are not to be permitted to receive but in both kinds, because the division of one and the same Sacrament cannot be done without sacrilege. The whole decree is this: We find that some men having taken the portion of our Lord's body, refrain from the Cup of the holy blood. Which men (because they are imbued with I know not what superstition,) let them without any question receive the whole Sacraments, or nothing at all, for the division of one and the same mystery cannot be used without a great Sacrilege. I Answer: first Gelasius doth not say, no man is to be permitted to receive in one kind, but only no superstitious abstinent, Secondly, his reason is not only because the deuiding of the Sacrament is Sacrilege, but quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi, because they are proved to be imbued with a certain superstitious opinion, to wit, that the creature of wine is impure. The discourse then of Gelasius is, because these men are superstitiously conceited, that the creature of wine is the Devil's gall, therefore by them the deuiding of the holy mystery, receiving the consecrated Bread without the Cup, sine grandi sacrilegio fieri non potest, cannot be done without great Sacrilege. Whence he concludes, proculdubio arceantur, let such men be kept from Communion in one kind without any question, mercy, or indulgence: As if he had said, Unto men Orthodoxally conceited about the creature of wine, Communion in one kind may be granted sometimes upon just causes, as if they be by nature abstemij, that cannot endure wine: But men that be superstitiously persuaded against the nature of wine, proculdubio arceantur, let Communion in one kind be denied unto them without question, and granted in no case, because in respect of them Communion in one kind is ever Sacrilegious.  
The Minister also in this place keepeth a stir, and would make the world believe, that the jesuit Vasquez doth mainly oppose himself against the jesuit Answerer, about this place of Gelasius. The jesuit (saith he) is confuted by a learned and intelligent man of his own Society, to wit Vasquez, who saith, that some of his party apply the place of Gelasius against Manichees, but this exposition agreeth not with the last clause of the Canon. Answer. You show great desire to discredit your adversary, yet cannot you do it, so much as in this trifle, with truth. For in citing the censure of Vasquez you leave out the principal word, which being set down would have marred your market. Vasquez not only saith, that some of his side explicate the place of Gelasius of lay Manichees, but also addeth his judgement about the same saying, probabiliter explicant, this their explication is probable. Do not you see your falsehood in citing and vanity in urging this censure of Vasquez? If this explication be probable even by the judgement of Vasquez, how is the jesuit confuted by Vasquez of his own Society, as not answering your argument sufficiently? Is it not sufficient, that Catholics bring probable solutions unto your arguments against Christian customs defined in Counsels and received in the Church before you, or your Luther were borne? You yourself say pag. 11. That no man is to reject the Doctrine and custom of the Church, or the exposition of Scripture, commonly and anciently received upon uncertain and probable reasons. If the jesuit hath answered your arguments probably, as even by this censure of Vasquez he hath, then be your arguments at the most but probable, and consequently your revolt from the Church of Rome grounded thereon damnable. Who now is condemned by Vasquez his Censure?  
But Vasquez saith, that the jesuits explication, though it agree fitly to the rest of the decree of Gelasius, yet cannot be fitted to the last branch thereof, where Gelasius saith, that the division of the one and same mystery is Sacrilegious in itself, and in nature: Quare mihi magis placet altera explicatio: Wherefore, saith Vasquez, unto me another explication seemeth more probable. I Answer. First Gelasius doth not say, that the division of the mystery is in itself & in nature a Sacrilege, nor can it be very probably said that he did so mean. For what sense is there in this discourse, To divide the Sacrament by receiving in one kind is a Sacrilege of his own nature, and absolutely in itself, therefore let not these men be permitted in any case to receive in one kind, quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi, because they are convinced to hold superstitious Doctrine about the impurity of the creature of wine? Besides, had Gelasius meant that Communion in one kind is a sacrilege absolutely in itself, he would have decreed that not only superstitious men, but absolutely all men should be kept from the same proculdubio, without any question. Wherefore Gelasius his decree cannot be better sensed then thus. Because these men are conceited superstitiously against the creature of wine, their receiving in one kind without the Cup, can not but be impious; Therefore proculdubio arceantur, let not Communion in one kind be given unto them in any case, though unto Orthodox people upon just reasons the same may be granted. Secondly, suppose all that Vasquez would conclude, to wit, that another exposition is more probable, what have you gained? Surely nothing; for this other exposition better liked by Vasquez is, that Gelasius spoke not of laymen receiving, but of Priests that celebrate and consecrate, affirming, that it is sacrilegious in itself for Priests to consecrated without receiving in both kinds. If the jesuit Vasquez in this exposition and doctrine seem to you learned & intelligent, be it so in God's name, you are satisfied, and your Adversary contented; for he did never mean to say, that this explication is improbable, specially the same being given by Gratian, who read that Epistle of Gelasius, which now it not extant.    
This custom was the cause that Cyprian 
(o) Cyprian de Coena Domini.  saith, that the Law forbade the eating of blood, but the Gospel commands the same should be drunk, not only because some Christians, to wit Priests, are bound to drink the blood of Christ, but also because Christ in his Gospel did institute the Sacrament of his body & blood in both kinds; whence grew the Custom of the primitive Church to receive in both kinds, & by custom there grew further an obligation to drink of the cup, except there were some just cause of abstinence, as in the sick, and in them that by nature loathed wine.  
And as this is certain, and granted on our part, so it is no less certain that the Primitive Church did never practise the use of the Cup, as pertaining to the essential integrity of the Sacrament, or as commanded by divine precept, but thought the receiving under one and both kinds a thing indifferent. This may be proved by the consideration of the time since Christ, ascending from our days upward; whence I gather five Arguments.  
First, is the Confession of our Adversaries, amongst whom a Bohemian Protestant 
(p) joan. Przibrau. confess. Fid. Cath. c. 19  doth profess that, having the fear of God before his eyes, he dares not censure the Roman Church of Heresy in this point 
(q) Hospin. Histor. Sacram. p. 2. fol. 112. . Hospinian writes, that some Protestants confessed, that whole Christ was really present, exhibited and received under every kind, and therefore under the only form of bread, and that they did not judge those to do evil, that Communicated under one kind. 
(r) Melanct. in 2. edit. Comm. impress. Argent. an. 1525. fol. 78.  Melancthon: As to eat or not to eat swine's flesh is placed in our power, & a thing indifferent; so (saith he) I judge of the Eucharist, that they sinne not who knowing & believing this liberty, do use either part of the signs. And Luther: 
(s) Luther. de Captiu, Babylon. cap. de Eucharistia.  They sinne not against Christ, who use one kind, seeing Christ doth not command to use both, but hath left it to the will of every one. And Hospinian allegeth 
(t) Hospin. Histor. Sacr. p. 2. fol. 12.  Luther, affirming it is not needful to give both kinds, but the one alone sufficeth. The Church hath power of ordaining only one, and the people ought to be content therewith, if it be ordained by the Church. 
(*) The Minister p. 500 saith: Concerning Luther, Melancthon etc. I answer that your benefactor Coccius (to whom you are perpetually obliged for your readings) allegeth some such sayings, but how truly it is uncertain. Answer. The jesuit read the sayings he citeth in Luther, Melancthon & Hospinian, not in Coccius, unto whom he is not so much beholding for his readings, as you are unto Chemnitius for yours; yea he durst engage his credit, that you cannot show some of the testimonies by him cited, in Coccius, which showeth your want of reading, and that your desire to cavil is greater than your wit. What you add, that these sayings are not now found in Luther & Melancthon, is as much as to confess that, whereof the Lutherans accuse you of the Sacramentarian brood, that you have most impudently falsifyed the works of Luther, though also Hospinian, a Sacramentarian as you are, hath these sayings both of Luther & other Protestants, censuring them in this respect.   
But these testimonies, though they may serve to stop the mouth of a clamorous Adversary, yet be they not sufficient to satisfy any judicious man, in regard their Authors were men most uncertain & various in their doctrines about Religion, now averring as Orthodox and divine truth, what soon after they fell to abhor as heretical & impious. I add secondly, the definition of three general Counsels celebrated before the breach of Luther from the Roman Church. The Council of Florence 
(u) Concil. Florentin. in decreto Eugenij 4.  wherein were present the Grecian and Armenian Bishops, where Concomitancy is defined, That Christ is whole under each form. The Council of Basill 
(x) Concil. Basilien. Sess. 30. , though they allowed the use of the Cup unto the Bohemians, defined the lawfulness of Communion under one kind. The Council of Constance 
(y) Concil. Constantiense Sess. 13.  gave example unto both the former Counsels being the first that defined this truth.  
The third Argument is, the received & allowed general Custom of the Church, which spontaneously even before the Council of Constance, did abstain from the Cup, as the said Council doth acknowledge, which may be proved by the testimonies of many that lived before the Council of Constance: yea Alexander Halensis 
(z) Halensis 4. p. q. 11. in 2. a. 4. sect. 3.  who lived two hundred years before the Council of Constance, saith, That almost every where, Laymen received under the sole form of bread. And Venerable Bede 
(a) Beda. Histor. Gent. Angl. l. 2. c. 5. & l. 4. c. 14.  doth signify that in the Church 
(*) The Minister pag. 502. You are guided by that spirit which is mentioned 3. Kings 22. v. 21. when you affirm, that Venerable Bede saith, in the Church of England ever since her conversion under S. Gregory Communion in one kind was in use; for no such report is found in him. Answer. Take heed, you be not guided by the spirit mentioned. Revelat. 12.11. who so perpetually calumniate your adversary. For he did not affirm that Venerable Bede did so say, as though he had made mention thereof in express terms, but that he doth so signify, or insinuate, which is true: for l. 2. c. 5. Histor. Anglor. he writes how the sons of a certain Christian King that was deceased being yet Pagans, said unto a Bishop: Why dost thou not give us that white bread, which thou wert wont to give to our Father, and dost still give to the people in the Church? Which speech they did often at sundry times repeat without any mention of the Cup. What you bring as contrary to this, that l. 4. c. 14. he writeth, that a certain man according to a revelation did presently dye, the mass being ended, viatico Dominici corporis & sanguinis accepto, is idle. For the Sacrament in one kind containing in it Christ's body & blood both, may be termed Viaticum Dominici corporis & sanguinis, the food of the body and blood of our Lord.  of England, ever since her first Conversion, under Saint Gregory, was used Communion under one kind for the Laity; which could never have entered into the Church without being noted & marked as an Heresy, had not the Church ever held Communion under one, or both kinds, as a thing of indifferency.  
The fourth Argument is drawn from many signs and tokens, that the primitive Church did sometimes use Communion under one kind. First, the sick received under the only form of bread, as may appear by the History of Serapion related by 
(b) Euseb. l. 6. Histor. c. 36. ex ep. Dionys. Alexandrin. ad Fabium.  Eusebius; and the Grecians at this day 
(c) Genebrardus.  though they give the Cup to the Communicants in the Church, yet to the sick they send the Sacrament under one kind: yea Saint Ambrose, as Paulinus 
(d) Paulinus in vita Ambrosi●.  relateth in his life, at his death received the Sacrament under the sole form of bread, and strait after the receiving thereof gave up his soul. Secondly, it was an ancient custom in the Church to give the Sacrament unto Laymen 
(e) Tertullian. ad uxor. c. 55. , especially unto 
(f) Basil. epist. ad Caesar. Patritium. Pratum Spiritual. c. 79.  eremites to be carried in most pure linen Corporals home to their houses, to be taken in the morning before all other meats. But there is no sign or token in Antiquity that the faithful together with the consecrated bread, did carry away with them consecrated wine; yea diverse histories show the only form of bread 
(**) Minister pag. 504. It was an ancient custom to send the Communion to people absent in both kinds, as appeareth by Exuperius in S. Hierome, Tom. 1. Epist. 4. and S. Gregory Nazianzen of his sister Gorgonia. Answer. Exuperius (no laymen, but Bishop of Tholosa) having sold the silver Ciboriums' & Chalices of his Church to maintain the poor, was forced through poverty to keep the Body and Blood in a basket of Osier, & in a glasse-Cup, so carrying them about when he did administer the same in the Church to the people. But that he carried the blood of our Saviour in a glass out of the Church about him, S. Hierome doth not say, yea he signifies that this use of Osier-baskets, & glasse-Cups was in the Church, saying, Nihil ditius Exuperio nostro, qui corpus Domini canistro vimineo & Sanguinen portat in vitro, qui avaritiam eiecit ETEMPLO: nothing is more rich than Exuperius who doth carry the body of our Lord in an Osier-basket, and his blood in a glass, who hath cast Covetousness out of the CHURCH. Nor is it probable that he carried the blood about him in a glass, when he went any journey, exposing the same to manifest danger of being irreverently spilt, specially glass being so brittle and easily broken, and the ancients exceeding solicitous and anxious, that the blood might not be shed, nor any particle of the sacred bread fall to the ground. S. Gregory Nazianzen, saith of his sister Gorgonia praying earnestly for the recovery of her health, That whatsoever of the Antitypes or Images of the precious body and blood her hand had hidden, that she did bath & mingle with her tears: which place Vasquez whom you so commend, as learned and intelligent, doth show to be spoken of holy Images of Christ's Passion and death, not of the blessed Sacrament. For Women were never permitted to touch the sacred Chalice with their hand, nor to keep consecrated Cups in their houses for the blood, but only white linen corporals for the body. It had been also against the Reverence ancient Christian devotion did bear to the precious blood of our Saviour, for her to have poured her tears into the sacred Chalice, mingling them with the precious blood: so that there is no sign in Antiquity that laymen did keep in their private houses, or did carry about them the blood of our Saviour in the form of wine. Therefore in their private houses, and out of the Church they still received in one kind.  was carried away, and consequently that the Church did not then esteem of Communion under one kind, as of a sacrilegious maiming of the Sacrament, as Protestants now do. Thirdly, it was an ancient custom in the Grecian 
(g) Concil. Loadicen. can. 49. & Trullen. can. 52.  Church to consecrated the holy Eucharist on saturdays and Sundays, & on the other days of the week to Communicate ex praesanctificatis, of the presanctifyed forms, that is, consecrated on the Saturday or Sunday before. Now, it is not probable that they did consecrate wine to endure five or six days long, for fear (specially in such hot Countries) the same should grow sour. Wherefore for the most part they did Communicate under one kind. Fourthly, the 
(h) Leo. serm. 4. de Quadrag.  Manichees lived in Rome and other places, shrouding themselves amongst Catholics, went to their Churches, received the Sacrament publicly with them under the sole form of bread, and yet they were not noted, nor thereby discerned from Catholics. A manifest sign, that Communion under one kind was publicly in the Church permitted, at the least upon some just causes that might be pretended. For how could the Manichees still refusing the cup, have been hidden amongst these ancient Christians, if they had been persuaded as now Protestants are, that receiving under one kind is a sacrilege. If one in the Church of England should refuse the Cup but once in a public Communion in the Church, would he not be incontinently noted? 
(i) The Minister pag. 560. First the Manichees were espied, else how could the Pope reprove their practice Secondly Vasquez the jesuit saith, That these Heretics received the Cup into their hand, but drank no wine: And among a great multitude, some few might hold the Cup to their mouth, & make show of drinking, and yet receive no wine. Answer. The Pope did reprove that practice of the Manichees, because he knew it was their Heresy so to do, in that they held wine to be the gall of the Devil, and that Christ did not shed his blood on the Cross; which also to be their practice such as were converted from that heresy did witness. Vasquez doth not say, that the Manichees did only put the Cup to their mouth without drinking, and so lay hidden and unknown; (for he was not so simple, but he did see this could not be done, but the Deacons that gave the Cup to the Communicants one by one, would presently have perceived it.) He saith that they did drink of the consecrated wine, but kept the same in their mouth, till they came to some place, where without being noted they might spit is out. Which I can not think to be probable. First the Manichees holding wine to be a thing so impure and detestable as the Devil's gall, how would they take the same into their mouth? Secondly, how could they keep the wine in their mouth so long, but that some part thereof would go down? Thirdly, S. Leo bids Catholics to note the men that omnino, altogether refrain from the Cup, signifying that they might by this their perpetual abstinence be distinguished from Catholics, that sometimes refrained. But if they took still the wine into their mouth, kept the same there till they came to a solitary place, where they might spit it out securely, how could they be discerned by their abstaining from the Cup, more than any other Catholics did use to do? Hence even Vasquez doth acknowledge, that this argument drawn from the dissimulation of heretics, namely of the Macedonian woman related by Sozom. l. 8. c. 5. is probabile, & valde apparens, probable and very apparent to prove that Communion in one kind was arbitrary, and a thing indifferent in the ancient Church.   
The last Argument, is practise of the Apostles, that is, of the first Christians under them, of whom we read in the Acts of the Apostles 
(k) Act. 2.42. , Erant perseverantes in doctrina Apostolorum, & communicatione fractionis panis, & orationibus, speaking of sacred Eucharistical bread, the taking whereof was joined with prayer, which unto the newly baptised was strait given after Baptism: And yet there is no mention of wine. So that Protestants if they will have these Christians to have wine, they must out of their own liberality, by way of interpretation bestow it upon them, seeing the words of the text do not afford it them 
(*) The Minister pag. 507. objects, That sundry Fathers and Authors do not understand these places about Christ & the Apostles, mentioning the receiving of bread without wine, of Sacred Communion. I Answer. divers Fathers as the jesuit showeth understand these places mentioning Communion of bread without wine, of Sacramental Communion, and consequently they hold Communion in one kind to be conformable to the example of Christ and the Apostles. And though some Fathers hold that these mentioned Communions of bread without wine, were not sacred, yet their reason is not because Communion in one kind is unlawful, which reason yet they would have alleged, had the same been the doctrine of the Christian Church. . To this Apostolical practice we may add the example of Christ, who gave to his two disciples in Emaus the Sacrament under the sole form of bread 
(l) Luc. 24. Accepit panem & benedixit & fregit. . That the bread Christ gave was Eucharistical and consecrated, the words of the text insinuate, some learned Fathers 
(m) Aug. lib. 3. de consens. Euangel. c. 25.  affirm, and the miraculous effect of opening their eyes to know Christ, and to return to Jerusalem, & the Church of the Apostles in all haste, confirms it. That they received at the hands of Christ the Sacrament under one only kind of bread, is evident by the context of the Holy narration, which saith, that upon our Saviour's breaking and giving them bread, they knew him, and he strait vanished out of their sight. So that here also, if Protestants will have wine given to these Disciples, they must by the superabundance thereof in their expositions, supply the want thereof in Scripture; yea the Scripture in this place is hardly capable of that Exposition, the Apostles acknowledging of Christ in the very fraction & giving of bread, and our Saviour's departure in the same moment, leaves no time for him to give them wine after the bread. 
(n) Beda & Theophil. in Lucam. Hier. in Epitaph. Paulae. Isych. l. 2. in Levit. cap. 9   
These be the warrants that Communion under one kind hath, being the greatest that may be: whereby appears that the Roman Church is furnished with all kind of proof in this point, in which she doth seem to her Adversaries to be most forsaken by Antiquity; which with all humbleness I submit to your Majesties' judgement. For supposing Communion under one kind to be good and lawful, that the Church could prescribe it, and that she had just reasons to prescribe it, I will let pass without proof, as a thing not doubted of by your Majesties' Excellent Wisdom.    

THE EIGHT POINT.  
Works of Supererogation, specially with reference to the treasure of the Church.  
IT is hard, if not impossible to give satisfaction in this point unto any that is not aforehand persuaded of the Catholic Doctrine of Merit. 

THE Minister though he speak railingly against our doctrine of merit, yet not knowing what he saith, teacheth as much Merit as we do. He grants a Merit of Congruity in words, and Merit of Condignity in truth. For a work may be Congruous unto the Reward two ways. First, merely of God's mercy and goodness, not out of any intrinsical worthiness thereof. This the Divines term Merit of Congruity, or of mere Impetration.  
Secondly, the work may be congruous in respect of intrinsical honour and dignity, regarded of God and moving him to recompense the work according to the measure & quantity of this goodness. This is properly the merit of Condignity, or which is all one of inward Congruity of the Work with the Reward. Now, that the Minister grants this merit of inherent Congruity and worthiness unto good works, his words manifest. First, he saith p. 169. lin. 26. That the merit of Christ doth by grace give true INHERENT sanctity and purity unto men's souls and actions. Secondly, pag. 170. lin. 26. That good works are an ACCEPTABLE sacrifice unto God, and the same are TRULY good, not only comparatively, but according to the rule of virtue. Thirdly, pag. 174. lin. 25. That in all good works there is a DIGNITY of grace, Divine similitude, goodness, and honour. Fourthly, pag. 174. lin. 40. That the reward of good works is called a Crown of righteousness 2. Tim. 4.8. because it is bestowed on them that exercise righteousness, in REGARD of their righteousness. Fiftly, pag. 174. lin. 18. That God in giving the reward considereth the mind and quality of the Doer, the integrity, MEASURE and QVANTITY of the work. Thus much the Minister grants. Now is this the merit of mere impetration & extrinsecall congruity in respect of God's goodness, and not the merit of INHERENT RIGHTEOUSNESS, Sanctity, purity, dignity of works, God having promised to reward them, with regard had even unto the MEASURE and quantity of that their inherent goodness? Surly M. White, no judicious Protestant will grant thus much as you have done; or if he do, he will never deny merit of condignity, or inherent justice to be found in good works. And if you grant, unto Good works the merit of inherent justice, you grant the thing of merit condign; which granted it is idle to contend about the name, specially seeing the title of Merit of condignity is not defined by the Church of Rome.    

The Doctrine of Merit declared. §. 1.  
THIS doctrine is much misliked by Protestants, as 
(p) Concerning Merit.  proud, and arrogant, yet not so much misliked as misunderstood, their dislike growing from misconstruction thereof. For Catholics hold that no work is meritorious with God of it own nature, but to make the same meritorious many graces are required & those most divine & excellent, particularly these seven.  
The first grace is divine Preordination, because God out of his own goodness ordained man and his actions unto a supernatural last end, above that he might attain unto by mere nature, without which ordination no work would have reference or correspondency with heavenly glory.  
The second is, the grace of Redemption by Christ jesus, without whom we and our works are defiled, we being by nature the children of wrath, & should be so still, had not he by his passion and death appeased God, giving us the inestimable treasure of his merits, so that, In illo benedixit nos Deus omni benedictione spirituali in caelestibus, in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem eius, secundum divitias gratiae suae, quae superabundavit in nobis. [Ephes. 1.3.]  
The third is, grace of Adoption in Baptism, whereby souls are supernaturally beautified by participation of the divine Nature. Whence a triple dignity redounds unto works, one by the grace of adoption from God the Father, who in respect of this Adoption regards good works, as the works of his Children. [Rom. 8.14.] Another is from God the holy Ghost dwelling in us, by whom good works are honoured as by the principal author of them. So that he rather than we doth the works, who therefore is said to pray for us with unspeakable groans. The last dignity is from God the Son Christ jesus whose members we are made by grace, so that the works we do, be reputed not so much ours as his, as the work of the particular member is attributed principally unto the head.  
The fourth is, grace Prevenient, whereby God stirreth up in us thoughts and affections to good & pious works, & grace adiwant to help us in the performance of these desires, making our Freewill produce works that are supernatural in their very substance, & above the capacity of man.  
The fifth is, the grace of of merciful Indulgence, in not using with us the rigour of his justice. For God might wholly require the good works we do as his own, by many titles; as by the title of justice being works of his servants, by title of Religion being works of his Creatures, by title of gratitude as being works of persons infinitely obliged unto him. By which titles, if God did exact upon works with uttermost rigour, no goodness would be left in them to be offered for the meriting of heaven. But his infinite benignity remitting this rigour, moved thereunto through the merits of Christ, is content that we make use of our good works for the gaining of glory, & doth not exact them wholly and totally, as otherwise due.  
The sixth is, the grace of liberal promise, by which he obligeth himself to reward the good works of his Children according to the desert of their goodness. Did not God bind himself by his word in this manner, no work of Saints, though never so perfect and excellent, were able to bind him to reward it, as all Divines teach, though some disputation be, whether, Gods liberal premission supposed, the goodness of the work concur partially with his promise to oblige him, which is a disputation of no great moment.  
Finally, that Merit attain reward, is required the grace of Perseverance, without which no man is crowned. And though good works strengthened with so many supernatural excellencyes be good stays of conficence in themselves considered, yet because we are not sure of our perseverance, no nor altogether certain that we have good works adorned with the former perfections, 

THE Minister pa. 511. Can any thing be more arrogant & foolish then for miserable beggars & sinners to mintayne, that God should be unjust if he rendered not heaven to man's good works? And yet this proud Doctrine is delivered by the Rhemists, Annotat. Heb. 6.4. Answer. In your hoat-spur-zeale you wound the Blessed Apostle with the title of arrogant Foole. It is he who doth suppose as certain, & who taught the Rhemysts to say, that God should be unjust did he not reward the good works of his Children: for to assure the Hebrews their chatyes should not be unrewarded of God, he saith Hebr. 6.10. God is not unjust to forget your works, and love which you shown in his name in ministering unto the Saints. As if he had said, God should be unjust, did he forget your works & not reward them: But God cannot be unjust. Therefore be sure he will not forget your works. Even as when the Scripture, to assure men of God's word, saith Num. 23.19. God is not as man that he should lie, the same doth tacitly argue in this sort: If God should not keep his word, he should be a liar as men are. God cannot be a liar as men are. Therefore you may be sure he will not forget to keep his word. You should be more considerate and not thus rudely run tilting with bul-rush-inuectimes against the holy Ghost himself, in your spleen against the Pope. For this sentence, God should be unjust did he forget to reward good works, is the Scriptures, though about the quality of the justice that is in God, whether the same be proper or improper, a question is made by Divines: neither did the Rhemists say, God should be properly unjust, but only used the very words of S. Paul.  
The Minister pag. 512. If the jesuit should maintain that Good works meret justification or perseverance, not by their Nature, but by Grace, this distinction would not free his Tenet from error: so likewise it is erroneous to maintain that Good works merit by grace. Answer. If Good works should merit justification, they must do it by the force of the goodness inherent in their nature, and not as elevated by the grace of adoption, seeing before justification they be not Gods Children. But to say that men merit with God by the sole natural goodness of their works, not elevated by the grace of adoption, is erroneous. The works of God's Children cannot merit the grace of perseverance, because they be not elevated unto that end by the grace of divine preordination, and Gods liberal promise. Besides the works of the just be condignly rewarded with the Crown of Glory and so nothing of their value can be spared to merit any thing Condignly, but only glory. If the works of God's Children were not otherwise Condignly rewarded, they might merit the grace of perseverance, should God promise the same unto Good works done in a certain number and quality; so your instance betrays your ignorance.  
The Minister pag. 512. S. Paul saith, Rom. 8.18. I think the Passions of this time be not Condign to the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us. The Passions here expressed were Martyrdoms justified by grace, Philip. 1.29. spiritual Sacrifices of a sweet smelling odour, 2. Tim. 46. and Condignity, or worthiness equal in desert or value is denied unto them. Answer. The Apostle saith that the Passions of time be not Condign of their own Temporal and fleeting nature unto infinite eternal glory. Therefore to the end they may be condign, they must be elevated by the grace of divine adoption. For thus goeth the whole discourse, The spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the Children of God. If his Children then his heirs, the heirs of God, fellow-heyres with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him that we may be glorified with him. For I think the Passions of this time not to be condign unto the future glory. By this it is clear S. Paul meaneth that the Passions of time be not proportionable in their nature which is temporal & fleeting, unto the eternity of glory; & therefore they must be advanced & made dear and precious to God by the grace of adoption, which is a grace proportionable unto glory; for if we be the Children of God, we be the heirs of his glory.  
And if the Minister's Argument were good, it would otherthow the merit of inward inherent congruity which he doth acknowledge. For Saint Paul might truly have said, Passions of time, or which are of transitory and fleeting nature, are not congruous in respect of the eternity of glory, yea the Passions of Christ being temporal, and short were not by their own nature condign, or Congruous unto eternal glory, nor could have been condign, had they not been elevated by the dignity of God's natural son, from whom they proceeded.  
Minister pag. 517. The jesuit hath set fire on his own house: for if we own our works unto to God (as he saith we do) by the titles of justice, Religion & gratitude, what peeping hole, I pray you, is left for merit, to creep in at? Answer. Our works by the titles of justice, Religion and gratitude are due unto God, so fare as he doth please to exact them by his law, and no further: but he is pleased not wholly and totally to exact them by the aforesaid titles, but to leave them unto men, to use them for the gaining of the crown of glory, as we are taught by his word. Hence man's merit is not in rigour of justice, but grounded upon God's merciful indulgence, in not exacting upon works with uttermost rigour. This merciful indulgence is a wide gate, by the which Merit makes entrance into God's Children, shown you by the jesuit; yet so blind you are as you see it not, but go peeping about to find an hole for Merit to creep in at.   the Catholic Saints of God use not to confided in their merits past, specially being guilty of diverse daily negligences, but fly to God's mercies, as the Church teacheth us in the Lyturgy of the Mass, daily praying, In sanctorum nos consortium non aestimator meriti, sed veniae quaesumus largitor, admit. 
(A) The Ministers Arguments, or rather Inuestives against this doctrine of Merit, with a short Answer thereunto.   
Did Protestants know that we require all these divine favours to make any work meritorious; did they also consider how singular and excellent these favours are, they would not perchance wonder, that works graced with so many excellencies should have some proportion with the heavenly Reward. And so dealing with your Majesty, who is well able to ponder these things, I shall without proof pass by this doctrine, as not particularly belonging to the proposed difficulty.   

Merit of works of Supererogation. §. 2.  
WHEREFORE to come to works of Supererogation, these works besides the seven aforenamed graces, suppose another singular favour, & stand grounded thereon. This favour is, that God though he might, yet doth not rigorously require of his Saints & servants, that in his service they do the uttermost of their forces. He hath prescribed unto men certain Laws & Commandments, which if they keep he is satisfied, and what they do voluntary beyond these commanded duties, he receives as a gracious & spontaneous gift. This divine benignity is noted by Saint Chrysostome [Homil. 21. in priorem ad Cor.] and excellently declared in these words: Eat nim cum benignus sit Dominus, suis praeceptit multum admiscuit mansuctudinis. Potuisset enim, si hoc voluisset, preceptum magis intendere & augere, & dicere: Qui non perpetuò ieiunat puniatur, qui non exercet virginitatem det poenas, qui se non omnibus exuit facultatibus luat ultimum supplicium: sed non hoc f●cit, concedent nobis, ut non solum ex iussu, sed etiam ex libero faciamus arbitrio.  
Wherefore the precept, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy hart, with all thy soul, with all thy strength, doth not command an entire employment of all our uttermost forces: Nor that we never love, nor desire, nor think of any thing besides him, nor that all our thoughts and affections be wholly, entirely, & perpetually on him. For this were a thing impossible, and God doth not require of us things impossible, as 
(b) joan 5.3. Mandata eius gravia non sunt.  Scriptures and Fathers 
(c) Basil. ho. in illud Moysis, attend tibi ipsi. Impium est asserere mandata Spiritus Sancti impossibiliae esse obseruatu.  teach. This precept therefore commands a quadruple integrity of divine love. The first integrity is in respect of ourselves, that we love God wholly and entirely, not only with the outside, but with the inside, even to the bottom of our soul, that is in a word, Sincerely.  
The second integrity is in respect of God, that we love God according to all his Commandments, not leaving any unkept; and so to love God entirely, or with all the hart is the same, as to walk in all his Commandments.  
The third integrity is in regard of the effect of love, which is to join men in friendship with God, whom we must so love that there be no breach between God and us, nor we separated from him; which we do so long as we keep his commandments, without sinning mortally against them.  
The fourth integrity is in respect of time, that we love him entirely, not only for this present life, but also desiring & hoping to see and love him for eternity. And in this sense 
(d) Aug. de spiritu & lit. cap. vlt.  Saint Augustine, Saint 
(e) Bernard. serm. 5. in Cantica.  Bernard, and other Fathers are to be understood, that say in the precept, Diliges Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, is contained the perfection of the life to come, and a perfection impossible to be attained to in this life, to wit, it is contained in the precept, not as a perfection commanded to be practised in this life, but as a perfection to be desired and hoped for in the next; so that he that love's God sincerely from the bottom of hart, to the keeping of all his Commaundments, perfectly without breach of friendship between him and God, having his desires & love referred with hope unto Eternity, without question he loveth God with all his hart, soul, & strength. 
* 
What the Minister cavilleth against this truth, is reduced to two heads. Minister pag. 522. First to the definition of works of supererogation is required, that all which the Divine law commands be fulfiled. But if just men have sin, they perform not all the Divine law doth require. For every sin is a transgression of the Divine law, 1. john. 3.4,  
Answer. The law of God bindeth men to perform the works thereof, so fare as they are necessary unto Salvation, unto which the observance of the law is ordained, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, Math. 19.17. Hence venial sin is not properly against the law of God, but against the decency and perfection of reason, the law of God supposed, and his goodness towards man. The place you cite, as Saint john's, Every sin is a transgression of the divine law, is by you falsifyed, as I have showed in the Censure, Sect. 4. §. 9 though also that text speak of mortal sin, not of venial. The testimony of S. Bernard serm. 2. de Vig. Nat. by you cited p. 522. affirming that God command's his law to be kept exceedingly, that when we cannot do it, finding our imperfection, we may fly to his mercy, is understood of venial sinner, which, no man can totally avoid, which sins though they be not directly against the Divine law, nor properly against any law, yet they are against the decency of reason the Divine law supposed as hath been said. Hence it follows, that the committing of venial sins doth not hinder, but we may do works of supererogation; not works of supererogation in rigour of justice, but through God's merciful indulgence in not exacting of us so much as he might. Suppose a slave being bound to work 8. hours a day, work only seven: If his master forgive him this fault, without any new obligation, but that henceforward he work 8. hours a day, this slave if he work afterward 10. hours a day, doth he not a work of supererogation? Yes certainly, though a work of supererogation grounded on his master's benignity. In this manner, seeing God forgiveth his Children their daily faults upon their daily craving pardon, without putting new obligations upon them, more than that they keep still his law, if they do works more than his law exacts, they truly do works of supererogation.  
Minister pag. 526. No man though he give all to the poor etc. can exceed the highest and strictest measure of Charity and obedience in this life. For the Evangelicall law commandeth us to be perfect, as our heavenly father is perfect, Matth. 5.48. and to love, as Christ loved us, Rom. 5.7.8. and through the obligation of gratitude we own unto God, according to S. Bernard, Omne quod sumus, omne quod possumus, Answer. The Evangelicall law doth not require that we should be perfect as God is in equality, but only in similitude, that as he loveth his enemies and doth them good turns, that we likewise love our Enemies and do them the good turns we are bound to do by his law, which the Children of God by Divine grace may do, and more also. Nor are we bound to have charity equal unto our Saviour's, but only like unto his, to wit, that as he loved us so as he died for us, that we likewise dye for our brethren, when need requires, which many Saints have done and daily do practise. By the band of gratitude we own unto God all that we are, and all that we can, so far as it is required by his law, and no further. We are bound by gratitude also in pr●paratione animi, to be ready to do more than his law doth exact, when he shall by special precept lay that obligation upon us.  
Hence it is manifest, that the band of gratitude doth not hinder the possibility of doing works of supererogation, as may be declared by this example. Suppose the King pardon a gentleman condemned of treason and remit unto him the forfeiture of his lands and goods, whereby he oweth all he is, and hath to the King in Gratitude. Suppose also that the King exacting a Subsidy of his subjects, require no more of this gentleman than he takes of another of his quality; Verily this subject is bound to give no more than another; and if he give an hundred pound more than any other, it is a gratuity, a work of supererogation, which he might have omitted without any just offence or ingratitude, yet a gratuity grounded on the King's manifold gracious liberalityes, towards him. Such is our case with God. He doth not exact of us by the title of gratitude so much as he might, by which his goodness we are enabled to offer gratuityes unto him, which we might without offence or ingratitude not have offered▪ By the light of this annotation the mist of the Ministers Cavils is dissolved, wherewith he would obscure the consent of Fathers about works of supererogation set down in the next paragraph.     

The Fathers taught works of Supererogation▪ and proved them by Sccipture. §. 3.  
BUT they that love God so perfectly as they love not only his Commandments, but also his Counsels; not only shun such sins as separate from God, but also such as hinder the perpetual actual love of God. These be they that do more than they are commanded, that is, do works of Supererogation. And if your Majesty call to mind upon how manifold graces this Merit is grounded, you will not I hope, condemn the same of arrogancy, but rather respect it as being taught by holy Fathers, even in the express terms of Supererogation. In proof whereof I allege these few testimonies.  
Haymo, a learned Expositor of Scripture, living in the year 800. thus writeth 
(g) Haymo in Euang. Domin. post Pentecostem. . Supererogat stabularius, quando hoc agit Doctor ex voto, quod non accepit ex praecepto. Quod fecit Paulus Apostolus quando habens licentiam ut Euangelium annuntians de Euangelio viveret, hac uti potestate noluit, sed die praedicans, noctibus laborabat. Venerable Bede in the year 700. upon those words of Saint Luke 
(h) Beda in cap. 10. Luc. , Quodcumque superogaveris, ego cùm rediero reddam tibi. Superogat stabularius quod in duobus denarijs non accepit, cùm dicit Apostolus, De Virginibus autem praeceptum Domini non habeo; Consilium autem do. S. Gregory the great in the year 590. alluding to this term of supererogating more than is received, saith 
(i) Greg. 1.26. mor. cap. 20. : Multi virginitatis virtute pollent, ut videlicet plus impendant obsequio, quàm acceperunt praecepto.  
S. Fulgentius in the year 500 
(k) Fulg. Prologue. in l. contra Monimum.  Quid est, si quid supererogaveris, nisi si quid à me magis acceperis? Name & ipse qui supererogabat in eo quod non acceperat praeceptum, sed dabat ex charitate Consilium, Misericordiam se profitetur utique consecutum. S. Paulinus in the year 400. 
(l) Paulinus epist. 2. ad Severum.  Hic Samarites (Christus) redditurus est beatae virginitati de innumeris huius boni fructibus, uberes gratias & immortales coronas, quia hoc consilium Praecepto adijciens de suo supererogavit. Saint Augustine in the same Age 
(m) Aug. l. 2. q. Euangel. cap. 30. : In illis (praeceptis Dominicis) imperat vobis, in his (Consilijs) si quid ampliùs supererogaveritis, in redeundo reddet vobis. And again 
(n) Idem ibid. cap. 19 : Stabularius autem Apostolus est, duo denarij duo Praecepta charitatis, quam per spiritum Sanctum acceperant Apostoli ad Euangelizandum caeteris. Quod supererogat autem illud est quod ait, De virginibus autem praeceptum Domini non habeo, eonsilium autem do. And in another Book 
(o) Aug. lib. de Adulteriu. Coning. lib. c. 14. : Quae licita sunt nec ullo praecepto Domini prohibentur, sed sicut expedit potiùs tractanda sunt, non praescripto legis, sed consilio charitatis. Haec sunt quae amplius supererogantur saucio, qui curandus ad stabulum Samaritani miseratione perductus est.  
Optatus Milevitanus, in the year 376. 
(p) Optat. l. 6. cont. Parmenian.  Sed quia, qui saucium commendaverat, se promiserat redditurum quicquid in curam amplius erogasset post impensos duos denarios, non praecepta, sed consilium erogat Paulus. Nec impedimentum est voluntati, nec nolentes impellit aut cogit. Qui dederit (inquit) virginem suam, bene facit, & qui non dederit melius facit: Hae sunt verba Consilij, nec sunt ulla praecepta coniuncta. Saint Hierome 
(q) Hier. adversus jovin. cap. 7. l. 1. : Plus amat Christus Virgins, quia sponte tribuunt quod sibi non fuerat imperatum; maiorisque gratiae est, offer quod non debeas, quàm reddere quod exigaris. Saint Chrysostome 
(r) Chrys. hom. 8. de Poenitentia. : Nequaquam Dominum incuses, haud mandat impossibilia, multi ipsa superant mandata. Saint Gregory Nazianzen 
(s) Greg. Naz. orat. 3. : In legibus nostris alia parendi necessitatem imponunt, nec sive periculo praetermitti possunt; alia non necessitate constringunt, sed in arbitrio & voluntate posita sunt, ac proinde hanc rationem habent, ut qui ea custodierint praemijs, & honore afficiantur; qui autem minus ea expleverint, nihil periculi pertimescant. Saint Cyprian 
(t) Cypr. de habitu Virginem, prope finem. : Non iubet virginitatem Dominus sed hortatur, nec iugum necessitatis imponit, quando manet voluntatis arbitrium liberum. Origenes 
(u) Orig. in cap. 15. ad Rom. : Eaqua supra debitum facimus, non facimus ex praecepto: verbi causa, virginitas non ex debito soluitur, sed supra debitum offertur.  
I will not bring more proofs of this doctrine out of Scripture which the Fathers I cited prove by the words of Saint Paul 
(x) 1. Cor. 7. , in express terms affirming that there are beside Precepts, works of Supererogation or Counsels: De virginibus praeceptum Domini non habeo, sed consilium do. Nor will I allege more testimonies of Fathers, which might be produced in great number most plain and pregnant. Only I cannot omit one place of Saint Ambrose, who delivering this doctrine, doth together answer a Protestant vulgar objection against it: 
(y) Ambros. l. de viduis, ultra medium.  Itaque qui praeceptum impleverint possunt dicere, serui inutiles sumus, quod debuimus facere fecimus. Hoc virgo non dicit, non dicit qui bona sua vendidit, sed quasi reposita expectat praemia, sicut Sanctus Apostolus ait, Ecce nos reliquimus omnia & secuti sumus te, quid ergo erit nobis? Sunt enim 
(z) Luc. 17. v. 10. Matth. 19 v. 17. Ibid. v. 12.  spadones qui se castraverunt propter regnum Caelorum, sed hoc non omnibus imperatur, sed ab omnibus flagitatur. Virgo provocatur consilijs, non vinculis alligatur; sed nec vidua praeceptum accipit, sed consilium. What can be more clearly spoken for works of Supererogation or Counsels?  
Neither is there any arrogancy as I said before, in this doctrine. For neither the Fathers, nor we attribute more unto man then Protestants do; but only acknowledge one kind of divine liberality towards man, which Protestants be somewhat backward to believe: for supposing that God exacteth much less than he might, & much less than man is able by his grace to perform, Protestants will not deny but a man may offer unto God some voluntary services beyond commanded duties; Catholics also grant, that had God used the uttermost severity of charging us with debts, as he might have done, we could never by any measure of grace that now is ordinarily afforded unto men, have complied with all our obligations, much less have performed vnrequired offices. The difference therefore between them and us is this: They think that God severely exacteth of man, that ever, & in all occasions he work according to the utter most of his power, yea commands him things impossible for him to perform.  
Contrariwise, we hold, that God, to the end his Law may be unto men a sweet yoke, a light load, and his Commandments not difficile, doth not exact of man all that man is able to do with his grace, but much less, and so much less as man is able through this remission to offer him liberalityes. What pride is it for man, to acknowledge this sweet providence of his Creator, to praise his merciful Indulgence, in not exacting so much as he might; specially believing, that this divine Indulgence not to exact of man, & consequently man's ability to present unto God, more perfect and excellent service than he requires, is given him through the merits of CHRIST JESUS?   

The doctrine of Satisfaction. §. 4.  
THE other part of this Controversy proposed by your Majesty about works referred unto the Treasure of the Church, concerns good Works, not as they are meritorious of reward, but as they are satisfactory for sin. For the works of Saints, as they are merits, be laid up, not in the Treasury of the Church to be applied unto others: but in the memory of God, to receive their deserved guerdon in due time 
(a) What the Minister here Cavilleth about Communion of Satisfactions, not of merits betwixt Saints, is refelled after ward §. 5. in the Annotation at lit. (x) .  
This doctrine of Satisfaction is like unto the former of Merit, much spoken against, & by many disliked in the highest degree, who yet perchance do not much understand what they so earnestly impugn, as may appear by this brief declaration of our doctrine in this point.  
First we do not think, that any sinner can make satisfaction by works unto God, for the guilt of Mortal or damnable sin. The reason is, because works of Satisfaction are such as merit pardon, and obtain it, by some kind of justice from God. The works of his Children, may merit in this sort, as being the works of them that are instruments of the holy Ghost, dwelling & operating within them, & living members of Christ his mystical body, receiving influence of life and operation from him, as from their head. Sinners are neither the Children of God, nor the Temples of the Holy Ghost, nor living members of Christ, so their works cannot be so gracious, as they may deserve any thing as due to them in any kind of justice from God, much less can they deserve so great a reward, as remission of mortal sin, and of the eternal punishment due thereunto.  
Secondly, we do not teach, that any Saint or Angel, can make satisfaction unto God for the mortal sin of any man, no not all Saints & Angels putting together all their good works and satisfactions. The reason is, because an Injury is so much the greater, by how much the person that offers it, is Base, and the person to whom it is offered is Noble, as the light of reason & the estimation of mankind showeth. But God whom man casteth away & abandoneth by sin, & consequently wrongs, is of infinite dignity, and man offending him comparatively with him infinitely base: wherefore mortal sin which is an abandoning of God for some transitory content, is injury done unto God incomparably grievous. On the other side satisfaction is the less esteemed, by how much the person satisfying is mean, and the person offended great. Men and Angels what are they, being compared with God? Certainly nothing; therefore certainly their works & satisfactions are inestimably disproportionable to satisfy for any the least mortal sin, the guilt whereof is so great a debt as it is unsatisfiable, but only by the precious blood of the Son of God. He being a person Coequal & Consubstantial with his Father, to satisfy God's anger by humbling the infinite dignity of his person, unto the most disgraceful death of the Cross, offered satisfaction full and complete, yea superabundant; the person satisfying in regard of his Divinity being infinitely more honourable, than the person offending was contemptible by reason of his baseness.  
Thirdly, the Roman Church teacheth, that those that have been made the Children of God by Baptism, if they sinne mortally afterward, when they repent God forgives them the guilt of sin, and consequently the eternal punishment by the Sacrament of Penance, bountifully & graciously through the mere merits of Christ, without their satisfaction; only they must by Faith, by fear, by hope, by Contrition, by purposes of amendment prepare & make themselves capable of that gracious and grace-infusing pardon.  
Fourthly, the Roman Church holds, that God by Pennance forgiving the eternal punishment, doth in lieu thereof many times appoint a task of temporal pain, to be endured by the Penitent. This reserved penalty is greater or lesser according to the multitude, and grievousness of the sins committed, and is that for which penitents may and must satisfy. And why may not the penal works, performed by the Children of God, beautified by so many aforenamed excellent graces be sufficient to deserve of God the remission of this temporal mulct, and cancel the debt of enduring transitory pain? I could bring testimonies of the most ancient Fathers in great number, for the necessity we have of suffering these voluntary afflictions for sins, and of the efficacity thereof, to expiate sin with the very name of Satisfaction, 
(*) 
The Minister would fain elude this consent of Fathers by diverse Shifts, but two be the chief, which I will here fully refute. Pag. 544. he saith: The Romists in their course of doctrine about Satisfaction, pervert all that which the Fathers taught. First, that which the Fathers speak of the fault and guilt of sin, they wrist to the temporal pain of mortal sin, remaining after the remission of the everlasting guilt. Answer. You are according to the Ministerial wont, proud, & bold in your accusations, but poor and miserable in your proofs. You say the Fathers spoke not of the temporal pain of mortal sin, but of the very guilt thereof. And in another place pag. 547. yet more boldly, WHAT SOEVER is spoken in holy Scripture, or by the ancient Fathers, concerning redeeming sins by satisfaction, belongs to the fault and eternal pain of sin; and this satisfaction, must be performed by the delinquent himself in this present life. This you say, but prove it not, yea the contrary is clear truth, and proved by these 4. or 5. Arguments.  
First, if after the remission of the everlasting guilt, there remain a temporal pain to be mitigated, and taken away by penitential works, than there is no reason to think but the Fathers spoke something thereof. But yourself p. 540. lin. vlt. say, That there is a remainder of Temporal affliction after the remission of the guilt of sin. And pag 541. lin. 7. That this temporal pain may be removed, or mitigated by works of mortification and penance. Therefore you have no reason to think the Fathers never spoke thereof.  
Secondly, The Fathers spoke of that kind of satisfaction which David made unto God for his adultery and murder of Urias, yea they make this satisfaction of David the prototype and perfect pattern of that satisfaction they require. Hilarius in Psal. 118. & alij. But David his satisfaction by patiented enduring penalties inflicted, was satisfaction for the temporal pain, and not for the stain and eternal guilt of sin, which was remitted long before, presently upon his inward contrition and repentance, Dominus à te transtulit peccatum tuum, 2. Reg. 12.13. Therefore the satisfaction which Scriptures, and the Fathers require, is for the temporal pain, not for the guilt of mortal sin.  
Thirdly, the Fathers teach, that after inward grief, and contrition for sin, (by which they knew the guilt of sin and of eternal pain was remitted, according to the truth of God's word Ezechiel 18.22.) long continued satisfaction must be done, to pacify God's wrath, Cyprian. Epist. 40. Dominus longa & continua satisfactione placandus est. But the guilt of sin and eternal pain being remitted, men need not, nor cannot satisfy but for the temporal.  
Fourthly, the Fathers teach, that men must seek to satisfy for their sins, even after they be just, and God's adopted Children (Hierom. in Epitaph. Paulae.) but in the Children of God the everlasting guilt is remitted, and nothing can remain to be removed by satisfaction but the guilt of Temporal pain. Finally, the Fathers teach, that after this life, often there remaineth something of sin to be expiated by Purgatory pains, from which souls may be released and relieved by the pious works of their living friends. So saith S. Augustine expressly l. 21. de Civit. c. 24. serm. 32. de verbis Apostol. and many others.  
I omit other demonstrations of this truth. To what you so much object that Fathers say, men must redeem their sins and satisfy for their offences to God, I Answer: By sin, they mean the pain due unto sin, which is termed sin, because it is the effect of sin. Hence sin is said after the remission thereof to remain in the soul, to wit, in his effect, nor can the soul be said to be fully cleansed until this debt be satisfied.  
Minister pag. 544. Secondly, that which the Fathers styled Satisfaction improperly, and by way of deprecation, the Romists make satisfaction of condignity, yea of rigour of justice.. Nazarius in 3 p. D. Thom. q. 1. art. 2. controu. 7. pag. 113. And for venial sin, more effectual than Christ's satisfaction. Suarez▪ Tom. 4. in 3. p. disp. 48. sect. 3. Answer. Your slandering humour is intolerable. Nazarius saith & proveth that our satisfaction neither is, nor can be in rigour of justice. He addeth: If our satisfaction be joined with Christ's, dicetur eam esse de rigore iustiti● ratione satisfactionis Christi, it shall be said to be in rigour of justice in respect (not of itself) but of the satisfaction of Christ. Hence you charge him with this proposition, Men may make satisfaction to God in rigour of justice. Verily you may as well accuse S. Paul of making himself omnipotent, absolutely, and without any modification, because he saith, I can do all things (not in myself) but in him that strengtheneth me. Philip. 4.13. Suarez saith that the inward contrition inhering in the sinner's hart, is more effectual to expel venial sin by way of formal opposition therewith, than Christ's satisfaction; tamen satisfactio Christi in ratione meriti perfectior est; yet the satisfaction of Christ is more perfect and efficacious to expel sin by way of merit. Hear again you are showed a slanderous relatour of our Doctrine, and a falsifyer of Authors.  
Neither do we teach, that condign satisfaction may be made unto God in respect of the offence against the Divine Majesty, nor can we condignly satisfy his just anger, which hath a kind of infinity, through the dignity of the person offended, but only in respect of Temporal pain. In which respect men may make unto God satisfaction just, condign, equal, compensant, the Fathers say expressly. Tertullian libro de poenitentia: Christ proposeth pardon of sins to be REDEEMED by the COMPENSATION of penance. Origen homil. 15. in Levit. By the fruits of penance, by laborious good works, the PRICE of the redemption of sin is gathered together. S. Cyprian l 1. epist 3. By lamentations and JUST satisfactions sins are REDEEMED. S. Hilar. can. 4. in Matth. How shall we PAY the last FARTHING OF PAIN, unless by the PRICE of Charitable deeds to the needy, our sins be REDEEMED? S. Basil orat. super verba, Atende tibi ipsi: Is thy sin great and grievous? Thou must needs apply against it much and frequent confession, bitter weeping, long & laborious watching, continual and never-interrupted fasting: let thy Penance be EQVALL unto thy sin. S. Hierom. in cap. 1. joelis. Let the sinner COMPENSATE by the austerity of penance, his former pleasures wherewith he offended God. And, in Epit. Paulae. The body must be punished by sharp entreaty, which hath been long enured to pleasure: much time spent in laughing must be COMPENSATED by continual weeping. Theodoret Epitome. divinorum Decretor. c. de Poenit. Even the wounds after Baptism are curable, but not without many tears, and weep, and mournings, and fastings, and prayngs, and by pain CONTEMPERED unto the QVANTITY of the sin. S. Gregory homil. 20. in Euang. We must not only do the fruits and works of penance, but works of penance that be WORTHY or CONDIGN; DIGNOS poenitentiae fructus. Venerable Bede l. 1. in Lucam c. 2. Sacrifice unto God a sacrifice of JUSTICE, that is, Be so angry against your former sins, that you massacre them, by doing CONDIGN works of penance, punishing yourselves for EVERY SIN, IVST AS MUCH, as CONDIGN penance requires. This is a Sacrifice of JUSTICE.  
Thus the Fathers teach, proving their Doctrine by Scripture, whereby your vanity is manifest, who think to elude their Testimonies by the distinction, That they spoke of satisfaction of deprecation and impetrant, not of condignity and compensant. Against whom the Fathers, as if they had foreseen your forgery, oppose themselves directly, formally, and in terms.   there being scarce any ancient Father, that hath not taught both the thing, and the word.   

Work, with reference unto the Treasure of the Church. §. 5.  
BUT I suppose these testimonies are unto your Majesty well known, & therefore in this proposed difficulty, supposing the satisfaction for sin to be possible, you move this doubt; Whether the penitents can so fully satisfy for themselves, as their satisfactions may superabound and be referred into the treasure of the Church? To satisfy this doubt, three propositions are to be proved.  
The first, that good works of Saints that are penal and afflictive do not only merit heaven, but also satisfy for sin. This is proved. Giving of Alms for the love of Christ, is meritorious; witness our Saviour himself, who to the Just, in the reward of their Alms, will give the Kingdom prepared from the beginning of the world. [Matth. 23.] And it is also satisfactory for sin, witness Daniel, who gave this counsel unto the Babylonian King, 
(a) Daniel 4.24.  Redeem thy sins with Almsdeeds, and thine iniquities with mercies, unto the poor. And Saint Chrysostome 
(b) Chrysost. hom. 25. in Act. Apost.  who saith, There is no sin, which giving of Alms cannot cancel. And Saint Cyprian: 
(c) Cyprian. Serm. d. Eleemosyna.  Eleemosynis, atque operibus iustis delictorum flamma sopitur.  
Prayer is likewise meritorious with God; our Saviour exhorteth every man to pray secretly in his Closet, promising that, 
(d) Matth. 6.6.7.  Thy Father, who seethe what is done in secret, will reward thee. It is also satisfactory for sin. Saint Augustine 
(e) Aug. Enchyr. c. 7●▪  saith: The daily prayer of the faithful doth satisfy for their quotidian, & light offences, without which none can lead this life.  
To fast, is meritorious, when it proceeds from a pure hart, to which our Saviour in the 6. of Saint Matthew, promised recompense: and that it is penal and satisfactory for Corporal penalties, the fact of the Ninivites 
(f) jonae cap. vlt.  showeth abundantly; so that the same works of the Just as pious, do merit, and shall have in heaven a plentiful reward; as penal do satisfy and obtain full remission of the temporal penalties remaining to be suffered for sin. In confirmation whereof, memorable is the saying of Saint Cyprian 
(g) Cypr. serm. de lapsis, circa finem.  of fervent penance & punition of the body: Qui sic D●o satisfec●rit etc. non solùm Dei veniam mer●bitur, sed Coronam.  
The second Proposition. Many Saints endured more penalties and afflictions in this life, than were necessary for the recompensing of the temporal pains due to their sins. The Blessed Virgin 
(h) The Ministers railing against the Doctrine which makes the Blessed Virgin free from actual sin, is discovered in the Censure, Sect. 4. §. 9 pag. 120.  never committed actual sin; witness S. Ambrose 
(i) Ambros. serm. vlt. in Psal. 118.  terming her, ab omni integram labe peccati; and S. Augustine saying 
(k) Aug. de Nat. & Grat. cap. 36. , Plus gratiae ei collatum est, ad vincendum ex omni parte peccatum: Yet she endured many afflictions, her many journeys, specially her banishment into Egypt, her standing at the foot of the Cross when the sword of sorrow pierced through her hart, besides her many voluntary Fast, and Praying, and other penitential works which were daily practised in the course of her most holy life. Saint john the Baptist 
(l) Luc. 1. v. 8. , what a pure and immaculate course of life held he from his Infancy, in the wilderness? Never committed any great sins, yea scarce so much as light sins, as the Fathers 
(m) Gregor. in cap. 2. job. 11. Numquid credimus aliquid fuisse quod in joannis vita mors tergeret? Venerab. Beda ho. de decollat. joan. Quis dicere audeat joannem in actu, vel dicto, habitu, vel victu peccasse? Quis in eius praecordijs esse poterat peccato locus & c?  teach, gathering their opinion of this his sanctiiy from the Scripture: and yet extremely penitential was he in his continual praying, fasting, lying on the ground, enduring cold, wind & weather, his wearing continually a rough haircloth, whereof Saint Paulinus writes 
(n) Paulin. ep. 11. ad Severum. : 
Vestis erat curui setis compacta Cameli,  
Contra Luxuriam molles duraret ut artus,  
Arceretque graues compuncto corpore somnos.  What a mighty mass of superabounding 
(o) That Saints can make superaboundant satisfaction, is also proved by the sayings of the Minister in the Censure, Sect. 4. §. 5.  Satisfactions were gathered from the life of this Saint alone?  
The Prophets of the old Testament, what afflictions did they endure? Which Saint Paul 
(p) Ad Heb. 11.36.  gathers together in the eleventh Chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews, being nevertheless men of most holy life, innocent, and without any grievous sins, 
(q) 1. Cor. 4.2. Cor. 11▪  That the world was unworthy of them. As also the Apostles, whose labours were intolerable, specially such as Saint Paul records endured by himself, who yet after Baptism (in which his sins were fully and certainly remitted) never did grievously offend God. The labours 
(r) Cypr. l. 4. epist. 2.  and torments of Martyrs were extreme, and yet any the least Martyrdom is sufficient to satisfy for any great multitude of offences, 
(s) Aug. tract. 64. in joan.  quoad reatum culpae & poenae. Of whose merits the Church in the primitive times did make most account; to whom afterwards succeeded another kind of Martyrdom, 
(t) Ber. serm. 41. in Cantica.  Terrore quidem mitius, sed diuturnitate molestius, of holy Confessors, specially of many most holy Eremites.  
These manifold afflictions endured by Saints, far above measure of the temporal penalty, which after the eternal was graciously remitted did remain due to their offences, did not perish, nor were forgotten, but were laid up in the memory of God.  
The third Proposition. The treasure of the Church consisteth principally of the superabundant satisfactions of Christ, who did endure much more than was necessary for the Redemption of man; wherewith are joined the satisfactions of Saints. We join the satisfactions of Saints with the satisfaction of Christ, in the Church's treasure, not because we believe the blood of Christ to be insufficient alone, to satisfy for sins, nisi velut arescentis & exhausti defectus aliunde suppleatur & sufficiatur: (as mistakingly, not to say calumniously, Caluin [lib. 4. Instit. cap. 9 n. 39] reporteth of us.) For Pope Clement the 6. (whom Protestants accuse as the first Author of this Treasure) affirms even in his Constitution about this matter, that the blood of Christ is of an infinite price, and every drop thereof sufficient to ctncell the sins of the whole world. The reasons of this conjunction are these three.  
First, That penal works of Saints as they are satisfactory, be not without fruit, for being satisfactory, and not having the effect of satisfaction in their own innocent & undefiled persons, they willbe without this fruit and effect, except they be applied unto others that are poor and needy, in whom satisfaction is scant, and the debt of temporal pain abounds.  
The second is, The glory of Christ, whose merits were so powerful, as to purchase to the church of God, such excellent & admirable Saints, so pure of life, so fervent in penance, as their satisfactions might suffice to pay the debt of temporal pain due unto others.  
The third reason is, to make men love the Church and society of Saints, whereby they come to be partakers of the aboundancy of her treasures to pay their grievous debts. This is that comfortable Article of the Apostles put down in the Creed to be known of every one: The Communion of Saints. This is that which made King David exult, saying 
(a) Psal. 118. vers. 63. : I am partaker with all them that fear thee, & keep thy Commaundments. And in this respect the Apostle exhorteth us: 
(b) Coloss. 1. v. 12.  Gratias agamus Deo Patri qui dignos nos fecit in partem sortis Sanctorum in lumine. This is that which the same Apostle writes to the Corinthians 1.8.14. exhorting them to be liberal towards Titus and Luke: For the present let your abundance (in temporal goods) supply their want, that also their abundance (in pious works) may be a supplement unto your want. This hope, to supply in this kind the spiritual need of Christians by the abundance of his sufferings, made Saint Paul so much rejoice in them 
(c) Coloss. 1. 24. : I joy (saith he) in my sufferings for you, and I make full the things that want of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh, for his body which is the Church. And again: 
(d) 2. Cor. 12.15.  Cupio impendi & superimpendi pro vobis: Out of which words 
(e) Origen. hom. 10. in Num.  Origen gathers, that S. Paul, as a kind of victim or sacrifice did expiate the sins of others; not satisfying for the Injury against God, nor for the eternal punishment due, but for one outward and transitory effect of sin, to wit, the debt of temporal pain. In this sense also Saint Augustine interpreteth the former words of the Apostle, of suffering in his body the things wanting of the sufferings of Christ: 
(f) Aug. in ep. 61.  Patitur Christus in membris suis, id est, in nobis ipsis ad communem hanc quasi Republicam. Nam quisque pro modulo nostro exoluimus quod debemus, & pro posse virium nostrarum quasi canonem passionum inferimus paratoriâ plenariâ. Christ suffereth in his members, that is, even in us, as for a Commonwealth: for every one of us payeth his own debt, according to his mean power, & according to his forces puts into the plenary Storehouse a certain measure of sufferings.  
This was the practice of the Primitive Church, which at the petition of constant Confessors in prison, did relieve the penalties that sinners were enjoined to perform, to satisfy not only the discipline of the Church, but also the wrath of God after the remission of sin still continuing unto the infliction of temporal pain, as appeareth by the testimonies of 
(g) Cypr. l. 3. ep. 15.  Saint Cyprian. And that this relaxation of temporal pain was done by applying the abundant satisfaction of holy Confessors and designed Martyrs unto the Penitents, that received Indulgence at their intercessions, appears by Tertullian; For he falling from the Church into the errors of Montanus, whereof one was, That for Christians sinning after Baptism there was no remission of sin, refutes the Catholic custom of remitting penalties unto sinners for the merits of Martyrs, speaking thus 
(h) Tertul. lib. de pudicit. cap. 22. : Let it suffice the Martyrs, they have canceled & satisfied for their own sins. It is ingratitude, or pride for one prodigally to cast abroad upon others, that which as a great benefit was bestowed upon him. And speaking unto the Martyr he saith: If thou be a sinner, how can the oil of thy Lamp suffice both for thee, and me? By which heretical Impugnation appears, that the Catholic doctrine than was, that men might satisfy one for another, and that the abundant satisfactions of some that suffered exceedingly as Martyrs, were applied for the redemption of some others more remiss and negligent, 

MINISTER pa. 554. It is remarkable how the Roman Higlars with one breath, both magnify, & debase the price of Christ's blood. For one while they say, That one drop thereof is sufficient to sasisfy for all the sins of the world; and then again they infer, That it is fit it should be eeked out with an addition of Saintly satisfactions, to raise a stock to redeem souls out of Purgatory. Else why stint they not this treasure upon the main Revenue of Christ's Passions only? Their detected meaning is: Christ's Blood alone is all-sufficient to save souls; but the same is insufficient to impregnate his Holiness his Coffers. The blood of Christ hath abundant virtue in it to cleanse sins, but it must emendicate virtue to fill purses, and to satisfy the Avarice of the Horseleeches of Rome.  
Answer. You speak in the proper Tune of your Gospel, which was ever the Note of Heresy, to wit, to bark & rail at the chair of Peter, the root & matrice of the Catholic Church, Cyprian ep. 88 The Angel said unto jacob, in commendation of his constancy, thou hast been strong against God, how much more wilt thou prevail against men? and I may say of you in excusation of your railing at us, What wonder though you spare not Christ's Vicar on earth, who in your ignorant zeal about this matter, rail and blaspheme even God himself? For thus you writ in the precedent pag. 553. If the Blood of Christ be infinite, it is foolish to join to the same the Blood of Martyrs & passions of Creatures. Is any man so foolish as to add the light of a candle to the clear light of the Sun? Thus you. Is not this Blasphemy against God? For hence I thus argue. He that joineth the blood of Martyrs and passions of Creatures to the infinite price of Christ's blood, is a fool by your censure. God, that men may attain unto heaven, doth to the infinite merit of Christ's blood, join the passions of Martyrs & of creatures, saying unto men, that except they suffer with Christ, they shall not be glorified with him. Rom 8.17. What followeth of this your saying, but the most horrible blasphemy that may be, that God is like a fool which joineth the light of a Candle with the light of the Sun? Hence your calumniation of the Roman Church is detected, the folly wherewith you charge her, being the very same wherewith you charge God. For as the joining of Saints works and sufferings to the merits of Christ, for the full purchasing of heaven, is not eking out of his merits by addition unto them, but to perform the conditions which God requires, that the merits of Christ may have their effects: So to join to the satisfactions of Christ, the satisfactions and mortifications done by Saints, for the abolishing of the debt of Temporal pain, is not to eke out the price of his blood with addition, but to comply with Gods will and pleasure, who will have us to be cleansed from the reserved temporal guilt of pain, not only by Christ's satisfactions and mortifications, but also by our own, as Scriptures and Fathers teach.  
Besides Catholics teach, as you may see in Suarez, Tom. 4. in 3. p. disp. 51. sect. 4. conclus. 3. That the superaboundant satisfactions of our Saviour is a sufficient and infinite stock & revenue, out of which the Pope may grant Indulgences ordinarily and without any stint, though there be not any saintly satisfactions remaining in the treasury of the Church, [Sola satisfactio Christi esset sufficiens ad indulgentiarum efficaciam, etiam secundum legem ordinariam] Whence two things are consequent. First, that the Minister belly the Church in saying, that we join to Christ's blood the satisfactions of Saints to impregnate his Holiness his coffers, as being persuaded that Christ's blood alone is not sufficient for this end. For if selling and buyng of Indulgences were lawful (as it is detested in our Church, and acccursed as a most horrible and damnable crime, Concil. Lateran. sub Inno. 3. & Vienn. sub Clem. 5.) If I say we held it were lawful for the Pope to enrich his coffers by the sale of pardons, according to our Tenet, the Pope might fill his purse & coffers by selling Indulgences out of the Treasury of Christ's passions only, they being infinite and unexhaust. Secondly, The Ministers so often repeated assertion, that the Doctrine of Indulgences is used unto filthy lucre, is a mere Ministerial slander. For the Minister is no more to be believed in saying, that by this doctrine the Pope filleth his Coffers, then in his saying, That he doth for this end teach that Saintly satisfactions must be joined unto Christ's, as judging Christ's insufficient to impregnate his Coffers. But this is a manifest slander, seeing the Pope holds that the price of Christ's blood is infinite, out of which infinite Indulgences might ordinarily be given, and also sold to enrich his coffers if that practice were law full. Therefore, a most false an impudent slander it is what the Minister here so often repeats, that the Doctrine of the treasure of Saints superaboundant satisfactions, is devised by Roman Prelates for filthy lucre.  
Minister pa. 135. Against the jesuits proposition, that Merits of Saints are laid up in the memory of God, to be rewarded in due time with glory, but redundant satisfactions be reserved in the treasury of the Church, thus raileth: By this you may see that Popery is a mystery, Apoc. 17.5. And the Canonists say of the Pope, His will is a reason etc. otherwise there is the same reason for communication of merits, as for satisfactions. For in Christ jesus both were communicated alike, and Christ is the sampler of saintly merit & satisfaction, if there be any. Answer. Unto men altogether ignorant of Theology, the known principles & truths thereof seem mysteries, and strange things, in which number you are. For otherwise the learned know a manifest reason, why the satisfactions of Saints be communicable, and not their merits, and the disparity betwixt them, and Christ jesus in this behalf. Christ jesus being by nature the Son of God, is not only free from sin, but also his soul in the moment of his Conception was advanced unto the highest degree of glory and beatifical vision any soul can possibly attain unto. Hence his works, not only as satisfactory for sin, have not effect in his person by nature impeccable, but also as meritorious of glory they superabound in respect of his soul, which independently of works is erected unto the highest degree of glory. Hence also his works being not only as satisfactions. but also as merits superfluous in respect of himself, be communicable unto other, not only as satisfactory for their sins, but also as meritorious of glory for them. In the Saints living upon earth it is not so: For they be not in glory, nor can they in this life be so perfect, but they may merit still more & more glory; and as they merit more and more, so their reward is greater and greater. Hence their works as meritorious of heaven, can never be superfluous, nor without the effect of a full and condign reward in their own persons; whereby it cometh also to pass, that nothing of their merits superabounds to be communicated unto others. But of their works as satisfactory for Temporal reserved pain, there is not the same reason. For some Saints may be preserved by special grace from all actual sin, as the Blessed Virgin was, or from any grevous sin, as was S. john Baptist: Others though they committed some mortal sins, when they repent, the penalty reserved after the remission thereof, being finite & temporal, they may by voluntary assumption, or divine infliction endure more pain than is the reserved. Hence Saints may have satisfaction which superabounds, that is, which hath not the reward of remission of temporal pain in their own persons, and consequently satisfactions that be communicable unto others, though the merit of their works be still proper to themselves and incommunicable. If the Minister will continue his railing against this reason, he may, but I do not doubt, could he deliver reasons for his Protestant Doctrine so drawn out of the bowels and principles of Christian Theology as this is, he would not rail so much as he doth, but yield his Reader some learned discourses, in lieu of so many bitter invectives.  
Minister pag. 555. Though the superabundant satisfactions want the proper fruit and reward of satisfaction, yet this (being recompensed by a large increase and surplasage in an other kind) can be no dishonour to God. As prayer though sometimes the same want the most proper fruit and effect thereof, which is to obtain the thing requested, yet is the same otherwise sufficiently rewarded. ANSWER. Your Example makes against yourself, for pious and Godly prayer being both meritorious of heaven, and impetratory of what is requested, never wants either of these two fruits. For as it doth still merit new increase of glory, so doth it still obtain the thing requested so fare as it is requested; for the thing is requested by Godly prayer so fare as it is profitable for the soul according to God's holy will, but so fare it is still impetrated. And if the particular thing requested be not for the souls greater good, another thing is obtained in lieu thereof that is better. Hence I thus argue: You grant, if there be superabondant satisfactions of Saints, the same must be rewarded by the proper fruit of satisfaction, as much as prayer hath still the reward of impetration. But prayer is still rewarded with the fruit of impetration, either in the person of him that prayeth, or in some other person for which it is offered. Ergo, the superaboundant satisfactions of Saints, must have the reward of satisfaction; which seeing they cannot have in their persons, they must have it in some other parties, to whom it is applied.  
The Minister pag. 556. If one should affirm, It is more for Christ's glory to purchase to himself a people which in this life is perfectly innocent, then to purchase a people carrying always about them the remainder of sin; he should not honour Christ but prove himself a liar, 1. john 1.8. so likewise to affirm, It is a greater honour to Christ's merits to purchase Saints that can make condign and superabondant satisfaction for their sins, carrieth a show of honouring Christ, but is in truth a Sacrilegious error. Answer. First the power and strength of the Divine grace is better seen in infirmities, and in men compassed about with the remaynders and encumbrances of sin, as S. Paul saith 2. Cor. 12.9. and S. Augustine, That the grace of Innocency was felicior, but the grace of redemption is fortior. [de Corr. & great. c. 11.] Secondly, ●f Christ did purchase to himself some excellent Saints that did make condign satisfactions, this is an honour to his merits: But the Scripture and Fathers affirm that he hath purchased to himself Saints, that can, and do offer unto God condign fruits, and works of penance, satisfactions, compensations, Sacrifices of justice, penance equal & commeasured unto the quantity of the sin, in respect of the reserved debt of Temporal pain, as hath been showed: yea that Saints by their works obtain a crown of glory, so as God giveth it them proceeding as a just judge 2. Tim. 4.8. Ergo, this is an honour to Christ in truth▪ and to say it is a Sacrilegious error, is blasphemy.  
The Minister pag. 357. The Communion of Saints in respect of the living, is copartnership in faith etc. Answer. The word of the Creed, Communion of Saints, is absolute without restraint, not to be limited by the brain & fancy of a Minister. Hence it imports, that between Saints there is a Communion of all graces and perfections which superabound in the one, and are needed of the other. But good works according as they are satisfactions, superabound in some Saints, & are needed of some other, as hath been showed. Therefore, between Saints there is Communion in respect of them.  
The Minister pag. 558. David was a man full of grace according to the hart of God etc. and so did not need the superabondant satisfactions of others▪ Wherefore in respect of this Communion he did not rejoice, saying, Psal. 118. I am, O Lord, partaker of all that fear thee. Answer. Suppose David did not need the satisfaction of other Saints, yet he might rejoice in that he was a member of the house of Saints, who may participate of the superaboundant satisfactions of others, if they need them, & that he did not need them he knew not certainly after he had committed the two enormous sins.  
To the place of S. Paul (1. Coloss. 22.) I joy in my sufferings for you, and I make full the things that want of the sufferings of Christ's in my flesh, for his Body which is the Church. The Minister pag. 559. Christ's passions are of two kinds, some personal and in his own flesh, some by sympathy and compassion of others. The first are satisfactory, and S. Paul supplied not, or perfected not them, for than Christ's sufferings were imperfect. The second are Exemplare, Purgative, Probative, and for the edifying of the Church, these S. Paul did accomplish and supply. Answer. To show the weakness of your Reply I ask, whether Christ's sufferings on the Cross as examples were imperfect or not? If you say they were imperfect, & perfectible by Creatures, you blaspheme: & also you may as truly say, his satisfaction was imperfect and suppliable by the addition of Saints. If you say, his sufferings, as examples, were perfect and full, & yet were supplied by Saint Paul, why may not the same sufferings, as satisfactions, be supplied by S. Paul, without being imperfect? For Saint Paul is said to supply the sufferings of Christ as satisfactory, not because they were not of infinite value, but because God will have the satisfactions of his servants to be joined with Christ's, that Christ's may have their full effect, even to the cancelling of the debt of temporal pain.  
Minister pag. 564. The indulgences Tertullian opposed were the same whereof S. Cyprian speaketh, Epist. 10.11.12. to wit, relaxation of Canonical censures and pennances to notorious sinners, at the request of martyrs living in prison. Answer. It is true, Tertullian being an Heretic, opposed such indulgences as S. Cyprian doth mention, as allowed in the Catholic Church. But that these indulgences were only relaxations of Canonical pennances & censures, you say, but show not; yea that the pennances released were required in foro conscientiae, to satisfy God's anger, appeareth by S. Cyprian his words in that tenth Epistle by you mentioned, Deo patri misericordi satisfacere pro delictis suis poenitentiam agentes possunt. And that penitents to make this full satisfaction unto God, and so obtain pardon, were helped by the suffrages of Martyrs, the same Saint Cyprian doth affirm, Epist. 13. They who have received bills from the Martyrs, to be released of their Penance, may by the PREROGATIVE OF MARTYRS BE HELPED WITH GOD. And Epist. 14. They who bring the Bills from the Martyrs, may by THEIR HELP BE AIDED IN THEIR SINS. This Catholic practice, of pardoning unto Penitents the reserved temporal penalty by the application of Martyr's suffrages & satisfactions, to have been impugned by Tertullian, in his heresy, is manifest by his making the Penitent in an heretical humour, to say to the Martyr who applied his satisfaction for his pardon: If thou be a sinner, thou needest satisfaction and pardon thyself; How then can thine oil of satisfaction be sufficient both for thee and me? Also the Martyrs, that sued for pardon to be given to the penitents, he accuseth of Prodigality therein, which is a sign that Martyrs bestowed something that was their own upon penitents, that they by virtue thereof might be pardoned; which cannot be any thing besides their own sufferings, according as they were satisfactory for sin.  
Minister pag. 565. The adversary is so fare from being able to prove Pope's pardons in Tertullians' days, That he cannot prove they had any being in the days of Peter Lombard, or Hugo Victor. Answer. Still you show yourself to be a bold affirmer about things you know not. For what more evident falsehood than this you vent, That Indulgences had not any being in the days of Peter Lombard? The Waldensian Sect was in being in the days of Peter Lombard, (as doth witness Illyricus in cate-log. Test. colum. 1498.) and they (as the same Illyricus doth record ibid. colum. 1501. & 1511.) contemned and derided the indulgences of the Church, which they would not have done, but that they saw the same had some being and use then in the Church. Pope Paschall the 2. some years before Peter Lombard, granted the Indulgences of 40. days to all that were present at the Lateran General Council kept in his time, as writeth Vrspergens. Chron. an. 1106. Vrban the second, in the year 1096. before Peter Lombard was borne, in the General Council of Clerimont in France, granted a Plenary Indulgence unto all that should go to fight for the recovery of the Holy Land: yea Leo the third, almost four hundred years before Peter Lombard, to wit eight hundred years ago (as writes S. Lutgerus in vita Sancti Switberti c. 9) did at the request of Charles the Great dedicate the temple of our Blessed Lady of Aquisgra●e donans eam multis indulgentijs, bestowing many Indulgences upon it. Moreover: The Pope (saith he) in France consecrated many Churches every where granting many indulgences. And again: The Pope granted special Indulgences unto the said Church for all the faithful, that should keep the feast of Saint Switbert, and come on his day to hear divine service. Behold how frequent and ordinary a thing it was eight hundred years ago, for the Pope to give out Indulgences, which you say had not any being in the days of Peter Lombard. Not only S. Thomas, & many Catholics writ, that Saint Gregory the Great before the year six hundred, granted Indulgences, but also Protestants, as Friar Bale Act. Rom. Pontif. printed at Basil Anno 1558. Gregory (saith he) did confirm the devotion of people in visiting images, by granting them indulgences. And again: He was the first Pope that did grant Indulgences unto them that should upon certain days visit Churches. And though we cannot directly prove that such general Indulgences for all the faithful, were used before Saint Gregory, yet it is not probable that holy Pope would use it without the example of his predecessors; yea had this practice been then novel the same would have been noted. But whensoever the use of such Indulgences began, certain it is, that Personal Indulgences granted unto particular persons, upon particular examination of their cause, were ever in use since the Apostles time, as doth appear by the former testimony of S. Cyprian & Tertullian.  
Minister pag. 566. The holy Scripture teacheth expressly, that all spiritual redemption is immediately wrought by the blood of Christ, who purged sin by himself, Hebr. 1.3. But our Adversaries restrain this, and the like place, to the stain and eternal guilt of sin, saying, that the guilt of temporal pain is redeemed by Christ only mediately, by the satisfaction of Saints. Which is against the Apostle, Coloss. 2.12. affirming, that Christ blotted out the handwriting of decrees (contained in the Law) that was against us, and that by himself; but the temporary punishment is contained within the latitude of the law. Levit. 26.14. Answer. You do not understand the Doctrine of your Adversaries, or else wittingly misrelate the same. For Catholics distinguish the merit of Christ's redemption, and the conditions by means of which, the same is applied unto particular persons. All spiritual gifts of this life & of the future, all remissions of sin either mortal or venial, all releasement of punishment either eternal or temporal, is wrought by way of redemption immediately, & only by the blood & Passion of our Saviour. But the condition which God requireth, that the same be applied unto particular persons, is not only the suffering of Christ, nor is the same kind of condition required in respect of every grace. Some be given upon condition of mere mercy, some not otherwise then according to men's works. The gift of justifying grace is applied unto men by the virtue of Sacramtts through God's only mercy, the sinner by faith, penance, and contrition disposing his soul for the reception thereof. But the grace and gift of eternal life, purchased by Christ his blood, is not applied unto men through Gods only mercy, but by merit of Good works, done by the power of grace; by works I say, so good and gracious, as God may according to them give eternal life, as a crown, proceeding as a just judge, as the Scripture teacheth 2. Tim. 4.8. and in a thousand other places.  
In the same manner, the remission of the stain of mortal sin & of the eternal guilt, purchased by the death of Christ, is applied unto particular persons by mere grace, by virtue of the Sacraments, and the sinners humble preparation to receive the same. But the releasement of Temporal punishment reserved, is not given of mere mercy, but penitents being now God's Children, after the gracious pardon of the sin & eternal guilt, must, to obtain full remission, do fructus dignos poenitentiae, Matth. 3.8. Luc. 3.8. condign works of penance, satisfactions, compensations just, worthy, condign, equal unto the quantity of the reserved sin, or penalty, as hath been proved by the Fathers. Hence, as eternal Glory though it be an effect of Christ's merits only, yet is it not given but unto such works as God may as a just judge reward therewith; so likewise, remission of Temporal pain though purchased immediately by the merits of Christ only, yet is not applied unto the penitent Saints, without satisfaction equal & condign, either done by the penitent himself, or applied unto him out of the superabundant satisfactions of others, by the virtue of Communion of Saints.  
Minister pag. 567. Daniel a sanctified person & a Prophet, able to communicate his satisfactions, praying for the remission of the eternal and temporal guilt of sin, presents not his own satisfactions to God, nor yet the supper abundant merits and satisfactions of any Patriarches, but resteth wholly upon the free mercy of God, and the future satisfafactions of the Messiah to come, Daniel. 9.7. Answer. First, your argument, Daniel in this prayer did not offer unto God the superabundant satisfactions of Saints, Ergo they may not be offered, is idle. For though there be superabundant satisfactions of Saints, yet it is not necessary that in every prayer we obsecrate God by them. Secondly, you cannot prove that Daniel did not offer superabundant Saintly satisfactions. If you say the Scripture doth not mention any such oblation, and therefore he made no such oblation, your argument is reproved by your own assertion. Yourself say that Daniel did obsecrate God, not only by his mercies, but also by the future satisfaction of the Messiah to come, and yet these future satisfactions be not mentioned by the Scripture as any part of his prayer, but only God's mercies, not for our own righteousness, but for thy great mercies. Why then may not we say, Daniel alleged the superabundant satisfactions of Saints, though the Scripture make not mention that he did? Thirdly, no doubt Daniel was of the same Religion that the three Children his companions were, who praying for the remission of their sins, and of their whole people, offered unto God the merits of the Patriarches, saying; For Abraham thy beloved, for Isaac thy servant, for Israel thine holy One. (Daniel 3.35.)  
The Minister pag 567. lin. 23. being angry at the jesuit that he doth so slight the Protestant arguments in this point, saith: If the jesuit be so rigid as to admit no argument on our part which may receive any colourable answer, I entreat him to deliver so much as one probable Argument (I will not require a Demonstration) that the Roman Bishops have power over the souls of Purgatory. Answer. When you shall find in the jesuits writings that the Pope hath power over the souls of Purgatory, or can by way of authority dispose of them, I will promise you that he shall bring ten thousand demonstrations in proof thereof. The mean while the world may see your vanity & desire to delude them. You know that the jesuit can bring evident proofs, for every point of his Religion, and therefore you charge him to prove, what is no part of his faith, & to bring probable arguments for that doctrine which he doth not hold as probable, to wit, that the Pope can by way of power and authority deliver souls out of Purgatory.  
The Pope by the power of his Keys, may grant pardon unto the living, out of the treasury of Christ his satisfaction, and the satisfactions of the living may be applied to relieve the dead, as the Father's most clearly and uniformly teach. But the Keys of Peter, can only bind and lose upon earth, and absolve from sin and penalty the living. Ministers when they dispute with Catholics, be like unto a man that sitteth on thorns, so pricked and urged with the evidencyes of the present arguments, as they would fain be removing to some other Controversy they care not to what. Thus you, in this place, are so galled to see your vanity displayed by the jesuit, as you wish yourself even in Purgatory to be rid of the jesuits urging. (pag. 563. lin. 23.) I dare say had his Majesty proposed the question, Whether some souls be purged by Temporal pain after this life, their state being releevable by the suffrages of the living; the jesuit would have so scorched your Infidelity with the clear testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers, as you would have run as fast from Purgatory, as you now would fain be in it. Whether the Pope have authority in Purgatory or no, you need not greatly care, being sure, believing as you do, never to come thither, nor after death, within the precincts of Peter's Dominion, who bears the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. No doubt you are to fall into a lower place, except you repent of that heavy sin so clearly discovered in this your Reply, to impugn known truths, & to falsify our Authors of purpose, to make the doctrine of the Church seem odious. Of which damnable and hardly remissible crime, I beseech sweet jesus of his infinite mercy to give you grace to be purged in this present life, that so there may be some hope you may be saved, at the least by Purgatory in the next.   not for eternal, but only temporal Punishment. 
(*) The Ministers railing Arguments, against the former doctrine, censured.   
I shall not need particularly to refel the vulgar objections against this doctrine, all which proceed upon mistaking, & impugn what we never dreamt off. They prove that Christ only died for the world, and redeemed mankind, & not any Saint: who doubts thereof? That we are sanctified and washed from the stain of sin by the blood of the Lamb, not of any Saint. We confess it. They bring the testimonies of Saint Leo & of Saint Augustine, that the Saints received Crowns of God, gave not Crowns unto others, but only Christ: we never did, nor will deny it. That only in Christ we die to sin, & are raised again soul and body unto eternal life; we never taught the Contrary: For the satisfaction of Saints have not virtue to redeem the world, nor to satisfy for the guilt of sin, nor to take men out of the power of darkness, nor to justify souls by infusion of grace, nor to purchase for men Crowns of glory, nor to raise men from life to death; But only they are available unto one transitory effect, which men might (were they fervent) obtain by their own industry, joined with divine grace, to wit, the Remission of temporal pain; which virtue also comes from the merits of Christ, and his most precious blood, in, and by the satisfactions of Saints applied to work the aforesaid temporal releasement: from which temporal servitude, the Children of God, may through his gracious assistance, by good works redeem themselves, or by satisfactions of their fellow-Cittyzens & Saints be redeemed, though this temporary Redemption compared with the redemption of Christ, deserves not that title.    

THE NINTH POINT  
The opinion of deposing Kings, & giving away their Kingdoms by Papal power, whether directly, or indirectly.  
THIS Controversy was not handled by the jesuite, for the Reasons delivered in the Preface; nor is there any new cause given to speak in confirmation of our doctrine, the Minister not having brought against the same any Argument. His whole drift in this Point is to slander jesuits, to cavil & sicophantize, which being his natural Talon, now ready to conclude, he is more sharp therein, as Motion according to Nature is still more vehement towards the end. I will set down and briefly examine what he saith, reducing all to five Assaults, in which the Reader shall see his Boldness in uttering, and Weakness in proving the most odious slanders, that may be vented by spleen and malice.  

The Ministers fond Cavil, That jesuites honour not the King, as Soveraygne.  
FIRST, whereas the jesuit saith; Regal & Papal, be two powers instituted of God, both sovereign and supreme each in his kind, both Venerable and Honoured by me in the inmost affections of soul; after the trivial trish-trash of a thousand times confuted objections, against the Pope's spiritual Supremacy, thus you writ pag. 570. in fine. Your Protestation, that you honour Regal and Papal Dignity, must be understood jesuitically, with mental limitation, to wit, that you honour the Pope as an earthly God, yea so fare, as that if he lead you to Hell, yea are ready to follow him. distinct. 40. can. Si Papa. But you honour the King as the Pope's Vassal. Matth. Paris. in Henr. 3. pag. 844. Nun Rex Anglorum noster est Vassallus?  
This is your first Assault, so strong, as if bold slandering, and idle arguing may win the field, the day must be yours. You lay two crimes to the jesuits charge. First, that he is ready to obey and follow the Pope though the Pope lead him to Hell. Can any Censure be more unchristian? The jesuits suffering persecution for his Religion, may convince any reasonable man that he is not so desperate, as to run for any man's pleasure wittingly to Hell; nor were he so mad, is he such a fool, as to go thither disgraced and persecuted with the Pope. Were he so minded, he would rather go against his conscience to please the King, whereby he might perchance get a Deanery, or some rich Benefice, and so go to Hell with Wife, Children, Servants, worldly Contents, merrily as you do.  
But what strong reason have you to judge so strangely of the jesuit? Marry, The Canon Si Papa d. 40. saith, If the Pope by being of bad life, & negligent in his office, draw thousands to hell, yet let no man presume to correct him (to wit iuridically, by deposing him) except also he do deviate from the Faith. This is the Canon; which supposed, your discourse hath this force and form. The jesuit receives the Canon Si Papa: But the Canon Si Papa saith, the Pope (not being an Heretic) may not be deposed for scandalous life, though he lead by his example thousands to hell: Ergo, the jesuit is ready to follow and obey the Pope, though he lead him to Hell. It is hard to say, whether your judging be more void of Charity, or your arguing of Reason. I perceive, if we fear your censuring, we must not maintain, that the King is not to be deposed for scandalous life, though he lead thousands to Hell: For if we do, you will thence conclude, that we are desperate, and ready to follow and obey the King, though he lead us to hell: So wise a disputant and Censurer you are.  
But let us hear your second crimination, and your proof thereof. The jesuit saith, I honour Regal Power, as in his kind Supreme and Sovereign: that is, (say you) as the Pope's Vassal. A goodly Comment upon the jesuits Text; what warrant have you so to expound? Forsooth, Matthew Paris writes, that Pope Innocent the third said of our King Henry the third, Is not the King of England our Vassal? What is this to the jesuit? Is he bound to believe every tale of Matthew Paris his writing? Though had you any skill in Histories you might know, that the Pope said so of that King, not because he thought that Kings be by divine Institution his Vassals in temporal Affairs, but because that King had done unto him voluntary Homage for his Kingdom. For this Henry the third, was Son of our King john, who gave his Kingdom in vassalladge unto this Pope Innocent, to protect the same from the incursion of the French, as he did. Hence at his Coronation being then in his Nonage, saith Matthew Paris, fecit homagium Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae, & Innocentio Papae, he did homage to the holy Roman Church, and unto Pope Innocent. After ward coming to riper age, in the 29. year of his Reign, he sent an Embassadge of four Noble men, together with his Attorney William Powicke, to the Council of Lions, and unto Pope Innocent the 4. to contradict the said donation of his Father, alleging many reasons, (saith Walsingam Ypodigm. Neust. Anno 1245.) that the King could not make his Realm vassal unto any, without the full consent thereof. The Pope answered, Rem indigere morosa consideratione, & so the matter rested. Now I pray you consider, how fond, & far fetched your Discourse is. Pope Innocent (as Matthew Paris reports) four hundred years ago, said of a King that had done voluntary homage unto him, He is our Vassal: Ergo the jesuit doth not honour the King, as Sovereign in his kind: Or, Ergo, his saying, I honour the King as Sovereign, is to be understood, as the Pope's Vassal?   

The Minister his fond proofs of his Slander, that jesuits hold singular Opinions to the prejudice of Kings.  
YOUR second Assault, is to prove that jesuits hold peculiar opinions prejudicial unto Regal authority, which no other Catholics but themselves maintain. This you prove by six Arguments, so silly and fond, as no man would have mentioned them to this purpose, but only yourself.  
First, jesuits (say you pag. 573.) are taxed, and censured by many of their own Part for singularity of opinions. This is your Argument in so many words. I pray you if any Doctrines▪ prejudicial unto Princes, be singular unto jesuits, that is, held by the consent of jesuits, and by jesuits only, why do you not name these opinions what they are? Why do you dwell upon generalyties, according to the custom of cozening Companions, Dolosus versatur in Generalibus? Why, but because you know, that descending unto particulars, your falsehood would presently be displayed? Hence you talk in the air, and in effect thus you discourse. I know there be certain opinions maintained singularly by jesuits against Royal Sovereignty, what they are I do not know. For they be written in books, as invisible as was our Church before Luther, no where to be found, but in the Globe of the Moon, and are no ways to be read, but by the light thereof.  
The opinion for which some Catholics at whom you glance (as appears by your margin) have taxed jesuits of singularity is, that God hath assured Prescience of things contingent, not only of which shall in time actually happen, but also of what, upon suppositions which never were, might have been. For example God knoweth certainly whether these conditional propositions be true or false: If King Henry the eight had never seen Anne Bullen, England had been Catholic at this day: If Queen Mary of Scotland had fled into France when she came into England, she had recovered her Kingdom against the Rebels: If the miracles Christ did in jewry had been done in Tyrus and Sidon, those Cities would have done penance. This doctrine some Divines mislike, and say the same was first invented by jesuits. Which if it be true, then have Protestants done jesuits wrong, that relate this very doctrine of God's conditional Prescience, as the doctrine of their Reformed Gospel. [Field of the Church l. 3. c. 23. pag. 122.] But, I pray you, what is this to your Scope? The doctrine, that God knows the state of things conditionally contingent, what makes it against the Sovereignty of Princes? Do you not see, you are ridiculous?  
Secondly, If jesuits be not singular in their doctrines, to the depression of Kings, wherefore was jesuit Suarez his Book, contra sectam Anglicanam, condemned at Paris in France, and burnt by the hand of the Hangman? Answer. I likewise demand of you, if jesuit Suarez his book be prejudicial to Princely authority, why is the same allowed in all other Catholic kingdoms; so as the King by his solicitations could not get the same to be condemned? Do not other kingdoms know the Catholic Extent of Royal Authority, zealously maintaining the Sovereignty thereof? How can that doctrine be singular of jesuits, unto which Bishops, secular Doctors, and Religious of other Orders have set their names by way of Approbation, as is to be seen in the beginning of that Treatise? And if your Argument be good, jesuit Suarez his book was in France burnt by the hand of the Hangman: Ergo, the Order of the jesuits holds doctrine to the prejudice of Princes; surely this Argument is strong, and unanswerable: Minister Paraeus his book was in London publicly burnt by the hand of the Hangman, by Order of the King, wherein no Papist had his hand: Ergo, the Protestant Ministry holds doctrines pernicious unto the State of Princes.  
The third Argument: Wherefore were jesuits banished out of the Dominions of the Venetians, professing the Roman Faith, if they are guilty of no singularity about the matter of Regal, and Civil Authority? Answer. Why are jesuits permitted, desired, and sought for by all other Catholic Kingdoms, and States of the world, if they be guilty of singularity against Regal, and Civil Authority? Should one dispute in this sort: Wherefore was Chrysostome [Socrat. l. 6. c. 26. & alij.] banished out of the Catholic City of Constantinople by the Catholic Emperor Arcadius, at the instance of the Catholic Empress, in a Council of Catholic Bishops, but that he was guilty of treason against Royal Authority? What would a learned Answerer say? He would laugh at the Disputants folly, and tell him, that Kings and States may be put into displeasure and Passion against the Ministers of God's holy Word, & so banish them their Dominions, not only for singularity against Civil Authority, but for other reasons, as for their over zealous inveighing against vicious life, & constant crossing of their disordinate humours. I could bring many examples of just, & holy men banished by Catholics, yea by pious and godly Kings, and States upon mistake, suspicions, false informations. S. Athanasius, that mirror of sanctity & learning, unto whom the Church of God is more beholding then to the whole world which then lived beside, was he not for suspicions about temporal Affairs, banished by Constantine the Great, the first Christian Emperor, the pattern of Religious Princes? [Ruffin. l. 1. c. 17.] God permits such trials to fall on his Servants for the exercise of their Patience, until time discover the truth, which being sufficiently cleared, if men still remain obdurate, his justice will not sleep.  
The fourth Argument. Mariana the jesuits work, de Institutione Principis, wherein he maintaineth Regicide, is extant in many hands. Answer. The example of Mariana proveth not, that jesuits hold singular opinions against others, but only that Mariana was singular against the rest of his Order, which through the oversight of Revisors passed to the print. A thing that may sometimes happen; which to prevent the General of the jesuits gave that severe Order about reviewing of Books in that kind, which the jesuit hath set down in his Answer. That jesuit Mariana was singular against the rest, appears, in that he was confuted by name of some of his own Order for this doctrine, even before the censure of Paris. [See the letter of Cotton.] And if you will allow, against the common Proverb, One swallow makes not a Summer, that the error of one be sufficient be condemn a whole Society, than the Minister Paraeus his Work, wherein he mantaynes Deposition, and Regicide, must make all Ministers guilty, specially seeing not one of them wrote against Paraeus his book, before the same was publicly burnt in London.  
Nor was Mariana his doctrine in the behalf of the Popes, as you often ignorantly suppose, but of the Commonwealths Power against Tyrants. A Doctrine which jesuits condemn, but Protestants commonly follow. I could name twenty of their Authors, that peremptorily affirm what Mariana did only doubtingly propose, yea much more. For do not Protestants teach [See the book of Dangerous positions lib. 1. c. 4. & l. 2. c. 1.] That judges ought by the law of God so summon Princes before them, for their crimes, and to proceed against them, as against all other offenders: That it is lawful to kill wicked Kings and Tyrants: That God to the people hath given the sword, from which no person King, Queen, Emperor is exempt: Being an Idolater he must die the death? An hundred the like Theorems of your Gospel and Gospelers, could I allege to stop your mouth, the opinion which Mariana did doubtfully insinuate being fare short of these horrible doctrines your Ministry doth resolutely define.  
The fifth Argument. In this kingdom, the seditious and murderous attempts of Campian, Persons, Garnet etc. remain to this hour in bleeding memory. Answer. The memory of your cruelty towards Fa. Campian makes Christian hearts bleed, that such barbarous Inhumanity should be used by men that bear the name of Christians. You condemned him who was a man (to say nothing more) civil, mild, courteous, and completely learned, Vir suavis & politissimus [Cambd. Elizab. p. 209.] for meeting together with others to plot the QUEEN'S death, upon a day when they were a thousand miles asunder the one from the other, as it was there proved at the Bar. The Queen ashamed thereof, after his condemnation, would by no means permit his execution, but you by your importunity at last forced her to yield to the murdering of this Innocent jesuit, as the Scribes & Pharises won Pilate to deliver unto their bloody pleasure our Saviour jesus, as your own Historiographer doth testify, Importunis precibus evicta permisit. [Camden. Elizab. pag. 326.] Out of this your Caluinian immense desire of innocent blood, you never ceased to vent bloody fables, and to father them upon Father Persons, but never was, nor could any be proved against him, nor against Father Garnet, but barely the hearing in Confession of the barbarous attempt of others.  
But suppose your Antecedent were true about these three jesuits, how foolish is your Inference? Some jesuits have gone about murderous attempts: Ergo, The Order of the jesuits maintain singular opinions against Regal authority? If your argument be of good Consequence, than this is of necessary importance: Many Ministers have been hanged in England for most bloody, and barbarous murders, yea commonly at the Assizes every year some go to preach from the Gallows. Ergo, the English Ministry holds singular opinions about the lawfulness of murder? Can you prove that one of the Society of jesus, spread over the world, was ever executed for any such crime by some Catholic Prince? If you could, how would you insult?  
So the vanity of your fifth Argument being apparent, let us contemplate the solidity of your last. Lastly (say you) jesuits here among us at this day be prime Oppugners & Disswaders of the Oath of Allegiance, & it woundeth them to the gall, that secular Priests propugne the lawfulness thereof. Answer. That Oath contains not only Temporal Allegiance, which jesuits are most willing to swear, but also the Abnegation of the Catholic Faith, to wit, of the Authority given unto Peter in the Gospel, devolved by course to his successor. What you say, that jesuits herein be singular, that secular Priests propugne the lawfulness of this Oath; their writings, their deeds, their deaths testify the contrary. Which slander they would not let pass with silence, did they not know your word to be of no credit: yea by their experience of your Brother, they be well assured, that the venting of impudent falsehoods comes to you by kind.   

The Minister's fondness in Cavilling at the jesuits words, about the Temporal Sovereignty of Popes.  
IN your third Assault, you undertake to sift & winnow, (as the Devil doth God's Elect) these words of the jesuit, I disclaim from enlarging the Pope's power over the Temporalityes of Princes by any singular opinion of mine, or more than the definitions of Counsels, and consent of Divines doth force me to hold. Thus you plead against him pag. 174. Mark here, You that shall read this; A sly Fox that would seem a sheep, and yet his tail betrays him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Though a jesuit can couch well when need is, yet he sometimes breaketh out at unawares. Doth his Majesty suspect, or inquire whether the jesuit hold an opinion different from his follows, and personal to himself? These words by any opinion of Mine, implieth the Individual only; and so, if he have but a few, yea any two, Mariana and Bosius, this may hold in Grammatical sense. Thus you, thinking you have showed yourself a witty Caviller, and hoping for applause you call men's eyes upon you with Mark here. Indeed you have played the Fox, but that foolish Fox, which (as I have heard one relate that saw it) biting at an oyster that gaped, the oyster closing caught him by the tongue, by which tied fast, he stood a spectacle of laughter: For let us discuss the matter. You say the words of the jesuit, By no singular opinions of mine, imply the Individual only. Be it so, what harm in that? Marry, the Foxes-tayle betrays him, the jesuit hath broken out at unawares. Into what hath he broken out? Forsooth, he saith, he will not enlarge the Pope's power by opinions personal to himself. Is this the Foxes-tayles whereof you cry to your Readers Mark here? Verily, you deserve a flapp with a Foxtail for your discovery thereof. Oh, but the King did not suspect the jesuit of personal opinions in the behalf of the Pope. Are you acquainted with the King's secret thoughts & suspicions? Suppose he did not suspect, what treason was it to say, I will not by singular opinions enlarge Papal power? Yea, but this notwithstanding, he may enlarge the Pope's power if some few ioyne with him. You that cry, Mark here, do you not Mark that the jesuit foresaw this Cavil, and to prevent the same said, by no singular opinions of Mine, nor more than the definition of Counsels, or consent of Divines shall force me to hold? Is the opinion of Mariana, and Bosius, or of some few Divines against the rest, the definition of Counsels, and the consent of Divines? Now are you not caught by the tongue? What more can you say to hide your witless inviting men to note the wittiness of your Cavil with Mark here? What may men Mark here? If you were in the jesuits case, you would not stick to say, Not a Foxes-tayle in my speech, but an Asses-head in the Adversaries carping thereat.  
But even Popish Synods (say you) are not fare to seek which have exalted the Pope's Temporal Sovereignty, as fare over Princes, as Heaven is above Earth? How prove you this? You say in the margin, Bellarminus contra Barclaium enumerat sex Synodos: Bellarmine numbereth six Synods in his book against Barclay. Well, let him number twenty; what then? Doth Bellarmine say they make for the Pope's Temporal Sovereignty? No, but that they prove the spiritual Sovereignty of Peter, devolved by course to his present Successor; which not any Roman, or Christian Synod, but Christ jesus himself exalted as high as Heaven, putting all things whatsoever upon earth, under the same: To thee I will give the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt lose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Matth. 16.  
Yet again, your feeble wit would fain second the strength of your malice against the jesuit. You say, Notwithstanding this Protestation he may defend the Pope's Temporal Dominion, and so close in opinion with Pope Hilbebrand, and Boniface the eight, with Baronius, Bosius, Aluarus Pelagius, with Augustinus ab Ancona, with Panormitan, yea and with the Devil himself. Answer. It is very hard for any sort of men to stick closer to the Devil, than you of Luther's generation; seeing, this your Sire saith of himself, Noctu Diabolus mihi accubare solet, propior etiam quàm mea Catharina. The Devil lies with me in the night, nearer unto me than even my Kate. [Colloq. de lege & evangel fol. 124. vel 158.] Yourselves writ of him, Lutherus à Diabolo doctus & institutus Missam abrogavit: Luther taught, and instructed by the Devil, did abrogate the Mass. [Hospin. Histor. Sacram. part. Altera. fol. 131.] Which History of his conversion from the Mass by Devilish Arguments, the same Luther hath written [Luther. Tom. 7. Wittemb. An. 1558. de Missa privata etc. fol. 228.] even with his own Protestant holy hand, wherewith also, as himself doth testify, he did eat more than a bushel of salt with this his Familiar. [Luther. Conc. in Domin. Reminiscere. Wittenberg. impress. An. 1523. fol. 19] So that it is small discretion in you to scoff at us about closing in opinion with the Devil.  
I add, that the Reader may see your jests to be still as sottish as they are splenefull, if it be true, as it is most true, that Damones credunt & contremiscunt [jacob 2.19.] Devil's believe the truth and tremble, it is no fault to close in opinion with the Devil, but to close with the Devil in lying, as you do even in this place. For Gregory the 7. and Boniface the 8. teach not that Popes have Temporal dominion or Soveraingty over the whole world, but only the power of the keys, in which Authority is involved to unloose all earthly bands, contrary unto the Salvation of Souls.   

The Ministers miserable Apology for Protestants.  
YOUR fourth Assault, is against the jesuits saying, The Catholic doctrine is not so prejudicial unto States as is the Protestant, held both by Lutherans and Caluinists expressed in their writings, whereof we have in this age but over evident and lamentable examples, to the World and your Majesty not unknown. Thus you writ pag. 577. Is the wit of a jesuit grown so barren? Have you no other evasion, but by recrimination, and that impertinent? For as concerning your Flim-flam of Protestants, both Lutherans and Caluinists, I Answer; His Majesty hath observed by long experience, that it cannot enter into any true Protestants hart, upon any occasion whatsoever to lift up their heads against the Lords Anointed. Thus you. Where I might say with S. Augustine, O stultitia hominis cogitare se dictorem, & neminem contradictorem! O the folly of a man, to say what he will, never thinking he shall be gainsaid, and hear what he would not. For did you think men would ponder your sayings, and gainsay them finding them false, could you speak such palpable untruths as you do? A true hearted Protestant cannot lift up his head against the Lords Anointed upon any occasion whatsoever. Mark the CANNOT of the Protestant Impeccability. They were wont to teach they could not keep so much as one of the Divine Commandments; now they are so holy, as a thought cannot enter into their hart to lift up their heads against the Divine Precept of Honouring the Lords Anointed.  
In Logic, as a pattern of a ridiculous Answerer, they bring this example, as if one should say, De possibili nego, de facto concedo, I deny the thing to be possible, yet I grant it to have been done. I see no remedy but you must be forced to this Answer; For, that a true hearted Protestant upon any occasion whatsoever, lift up his head against the Lords Anointed, you say is not possible: yet I hope you be not so impudent against the knowledge of mankind, but you will confess that they have often lifted up their head● and hands against their Sovereigns, the proper miracle of your Gospel, to done things that cannot be done. I pray you, they that first planted the Gospel in Scotland, & the Ministers of England in the days of Queen Elizabeth, were they not true-harted Protestant's? Was not the King's mother the Lords Anointed? by birthright a Sovereign Princess? Did you not lift up your heads against her? I cry you mercy, you did not lift up you heads against her, but your axe against her head, having first lifted up your hands, your arms, your swords to deprive her of her Crown, to cast her from her Kingdom. Look upon all Countries of Europe where Protestants live under Catholic Princes, if you find one Nation, or Province of them, that within these last seven years hath not been in open Rebellion against their Catholic Sovereigns, I will grant you the Question, that you Protestants are impeccable, that bad thoughts can not enter into your hearts.  
But the King hath had long experience, that at least the Protestants of England will not lift up their heads against the Lords Anointed upon any occasion whatsoever. I pray you, what experience hath his Majesty had, that in the occasion he should deprive you of your Deaneryes, take from you the Church-usurped Live, put you in prison, set up a Religion that would not endure wiving-preachers; what experience, I say, long or short, great or little hath his Majesty had, that in this, & the like occasions you will not rebel, lift up your heads, hands, swords against him? yea if you be able, lay the axe on his neck, as you did on his Mothers? When you seemed to have some little cause of jealousy that his Majesty might grant some Connivency unto Catholics, was not there a Minister found, that in pulpit did publicly preach, that in Case the King should turn Papist, Ministers may depose him?  
But alas, A jesuits wit, you say, is grown very barren, he hath no other evasion, but this Flim-flam about the Rebellious Spirit and doctrine of Protestants. No other evasion? Yea he hath otherwise confuted your false calumniations, and clearly laid open your idle Arguments. And the doctrine taught by Protestants, that the people hath the sword, from which the King is not exempt; If he be wicked, he must dye the death; That, judges ought to call Kings to the Bar, proceed against them for ordinary Crimes, as much as against other malefactors; That, the people maketh Kings, and may again vnking them at their pleasure, as easily as a man recalls his letters of Proxy; These doctrines I say be they Flim-flams, nothing pertinent unto Kings? I perceive you would have Kings sleep in security, and not fear your attempts, that so (if they anger you) you may do with their Heads, as jahel did with the head of sleeping Sisera. judic. c. 4.   

The Ministers Cavil against the jesuits special Vow of Obedience to the Pope.  
YOUR fifth and last Assault is an often repeated Calumniation, that jesuits cannot be Loyal unto Kings, because they are bound by special Vow unto Popes. Hence to prove, that jesuits hold singular opinions to enlarge the Pope's Power, you say (pag. 573.) That jesuits more than other Romists are obliged by special Vow to maintain Papal dignity. And pag. 579. If his Holiness send another wind, you which have Vowed strict Obedience unto the Pope, must turn your sails, your Votes and Prayers must be bound to execute the Pope's pleasure (in killing the King.) And again pag. 577. What safety and security can Princes enjoy by relying upon such servants, which stand Sentinel upon an hour's warning, to follow their greater Master? If your Master's hand cast Cross instead of Pile, what shall we expect from such Gamesters, Quibus Ludus sunt Capita & Diademata Regum?  
This is your Cavil, uttered with all possible gall, which yet is cleared by the words in your margin out of the Bull of Confirmation of the Institute of the jesuits by Pope Paul the third. You cite them in latin as against jesuits, to delude fools. But you English them not, as knowing they tend to the credit of jesuits, & the discovery of your slander. These they be: We ●udge i● expedient for the greater devotion to the Sea Apostolic, & more full abnegation of our own self wills and pleasures, that the Professed of this Society, besides the Common band of three Vows, be further tied by special Vow, so that whatsoever the Roman Bishop for the time being shall command PERTINENT UNTO THE SALVATION OF SOULS, and PROPAGATION OF THE FAITH, they shall be bound to execute the same presently, without tergiversation and excuse, whether THEY SHALL BE SENT UNTO TURKS, or unto INFIDELS, even unto those which are commonly called THE INDIESES, or unto HERETICS, or schismatics.  
These be the words, containing the matter of the jesuits special Vow. By which it appeareth, that their Vow is not to enlarge Papal power, but to propagate the Christian Name, to find out, not new opinions to put men under the Pope, but new Nations, never heard of before, to exalt them to Heaven, by teaching them the saving Truth. Nor are jesuits bound by this Vow to obey the Pope absolutely in all things, but in things that are according to their Institute, which is to follow (as near as by divine grace they may) the life of jesus. If the Pope command them, they must obey in things that pertain unto the Salvation of souls, not in things which belong unto the destruction of bodies. If the Pope bid, they be bound to go begging in Apostolical manner, not fight in military sort▪ to carry the Cross, not to brandish the sword; to sound the Gospel of peace, not the Trumpet of War; to give in the defence of truth their own Blood, not to shed the blood of others; to help men unto eternal Crowns, not to take temporal Crowns from any.  
Hence you may see, jesuits stand indeed Sentinel at an hour's warning, to be sent unto jews, Turks, Infidels, Indians, Cannibals, to preach the Gospel, and in preaching thereof to expose their lives to daily dangers of death, destitute of all comfort that the world can afford. In execution whereof they have by their labours brought to the knowledge of blissful life, and to the hope of everlasting Crowns, many Princes & Kingdoms in the Indieses: whereas your Gospel the mean while did nothing but tumultuate, raise seditions, murder, and put Kings from their Thrones in Europe. In so much as Beza (Epist. Theol. 63.) saith; What Churches should we now have, had we not erected them by force of arms, against the will of Kings? Whence it is clear, that the jesuits Vow to be ready at an hour's warning to go unto any Country of Infidels to preach the Gospel, is not against the safety and security of Kings.  
If some Ministers in England, could so eloyne themselves from all affections of this life, as to bind themselves by Vow unto their Lord of Canterbury, to be ready at an hour's warning, to go when he sends them without tergiversation or excuse, to preach the Gospel, whether to jews, Turks, Infidels, Indians, or Cannibals, as he shall think most 〈◊〉 how this Vow would endanger the King's security, I do not see. 〈…〉 would indeed trouble their Wives, & so it is a Perfection not to 〈…〉 for amongst wiving Gospelers: Yea they cannot endure the sight thereof, more than Bats the Candle, which they strive to put out with their impure wings, as these men labour to disgrace such glorious Institutes their Wiving Gospel cannot aspire unto, with the filth of all slanderous Reports.  
The Title of Gamesters, quibus ludus sunt Capita & Diademata Regum, that play and sport at the decrowning and beheading of Kings, which for a farewell you would shake from yourselves upon jesuits, will not so easily go from you; it is proprium quarto modo to you, the note and ensign of your Gospel, the distinctive Mark of your Profession, and will be so long as there shall be mention thereof. For your gaming, feasting, and triumphing at the beheading of the Lords Anointed is set upon Authentical Record in your own Chronicles [john Stow. pag. 1240.] Will you read it? Anno Reg. 29. The 6. of December, The Lord Mayor of London assisted with divers Earls, Barons, the Aldermen of London in scarlet, the principal Officers of the City, the greatest number of the Gentlemen of the best account, in and about the City, with the number of 80. of the most Gravest and Worshipfullest Citizens in Coats of Velvet, and Chains of Gold, all on horseback IN MOST SOLEMN & stately manner, BY THE SOUND OF FOUR TRUMPETS, about ten of the clock in the fore Noon, made open and public Proclamation of the SENTENCE GIVEN for the BEHEADING OF THE QUEEN OF SCOTS, to the GREAT and WONDERED REJOICING of the people OF ALL SORTS, as manifestly appeared by RINGING of Bells, making of BONFIRES, and SINGING of Psalms IN EVERY street, and lane of the City.  
Never since Christianity began was there Sect or Nation of men under the Name of Christian, that did iuridically behead a Christian Anointed King, feasting, singing, and dancing about Bonefyres for joy in that respect, but only your Gospel. So as men hearing the Title of Gamesters, quibus ludus sunt Capita & Diademata Regum, can they understand any other Profession but yours?  
Thus I have more largely encountered with your slanders, that you might see you gain nothing by your bitter excursions into odious matters. The mist of your Cavils is easily dispersed, by the evidence of the Truth; your Calumniations against Catholics, as balls cast against a wall of brass, (For— murus aheneus esto— Nil conscire sibi.)— return with a strong rebound of confusion upon your own face.     

THE CONCLUSION.  
HAVING performed your Majesties' will and pleasure in seeking to give satisfaction about the Nine principal points that withhold your Royal Assent from joining unto the Roman Church, my poor endeavours prostrate at your Majesties' feet to receive their doom, humbly beseech this favour, that your Charity & Desire of the unity of the Church, may join together with your Excellent Wisdom and Learning to pronounce the sentence.  
Although I be confident, that examining Religion by the mere rigour of only Scripture, the Catholic Doctrines would get the victory, more clear and express testimonies standing on our side, than any that Protestant's can bring for themselues, 
(*) This is further made clear by the Rejoinder, so that it is but the face of a Minister to say in this place That our relying on Scripture is Vanitas vanitatum.  as by the former discourse may appear: Although also, I be much more confident in the tradition and perpetual practice of the Church interpreting Scripture, which by so full consent delivers the Roman Doctrine, that partiality itself duly pondering the weight of things, can hardly in hart, and inwardly judge against them; yet my chiefest hope is in these Charitable thoughts, and desires of peace and unity in the whole Christian world, which the holy Ghost hath inspired into your Breast.  
For suppose, that Preconceipts instilled into tender minds against the faith of Ancestors, might so fare prevail, as to make them think (comparing Catholics with Protestant's) that Scriptures stand equally on both sides, yea (sifting the matter by Scripture only) that Protestants may seem to have the upper hand, yet Charity will move this question, Whether the testimonies and arguments they bring from Scripture, are so undeniably clear, and so avoidable strong, that no answer or evasion may be found, but the Roman 
(*) The Minister saith we give seeming and appearing solutions, but this is done by Sophistry. I ask who shall be judge? Or how can this by tried by Scripture?  Church must be refused, notwithstanding so much discord and dissension, so much inconstancy & incertainty about religion, which (as reason proveth) must, and (as experience showeth) doth thereupon ensue.  
For, if you cast away the Roman Church and her authority, no Church is left in the world, that can with reason, or dares for shame challenge to be infallible in her definitions; & if such a Church be wanting, what means is left either to keep the learned certainly in peace, or to give unto the ignorant assurance what is the Doctrine of Salvation the Apostles first preached?  
A Church fallible in her teaching, is by the learned to be trusted no further, than they do see her Doctrines consonant unto Scripture, and so they may neglect her judgement when they seem to have evidences of Scripture against her. And if this liberty of contradiction be granted, what hope of Unity remains, when a private man may wrangle eternally with the whole Church, & never be convinced apparently of teaching against the Scriptures? Whereof we have to many daily examples.  
If we take out of the world a Church infallible, whence shall ignorant men learn which is the Doctrine of salvation that the Apostles delivered? It is as evident, as the Sun shining at noon Day, and the evidence of the thing hath forced some Protestants to acknowledge, That the Controversies of Religion in our time are grown in number so many, and in nature so intricate, that few have time and leisure, 
Field of the Church Prefat. in l. 1.  fewer strength of understanding to examine them; so that nothing remains for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societyes of men in the world, is the Church of the living God, the pillar & ground of truth, that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, rest in her judgement.  
If there be no Church in the world besides the the Roman, that can with any colour pretend Infallibility of judgement: If the most part of men cannot by their examining of Controversies be resolved in faith, and therefore must perish eternally, except they find a Church that is an infallible mistress of truth, in whose judgement they may securely rest; Certainly those that have bowels of Charity, will accept of any probable answer unto Protestants objections and accusations, rather than discredit the authority of so necessary a Church, which being discredited no Church remains in the world of credit, sufficient to sustain the weight of Christian, that is, infallible Belief.  
What a misery will it be if it fall out (as it is most likely it will fall out) that at the Day of judgement the most part of English Protestants be found to have believed points of Doctrine necessary to salvation, not out of their own certain skill in Scripture, as they should by the principles of their religion, but 
(*) The Minister here raileth, but dares not directly answer the Question, What shall become of ignorant men who believed the truth upon the credit of their Church, & not upon their own infallible knowledge?  upon the credit of the Church that teacheth them, which doth acknowledge herself no sufficient stay of assured belief? For without question men cannot be saved who although they believed the truth, yet believed it upon a deceivable ground, and consequently by humane and fallable persuasion, and not (as need is) by a divine, most certain belief, grounded upon an infallible foundation, which cannot be had without an infallible Church. How dreadful then must the danger be of living out of the lap of the Roman Church, that is, of a Church of infallible Authority?  
This Church having a most glorious succession of Bishops from the Apostles, deserves above all other the protection of your Majesty, who by a long line of religious Catholic Ancestors succeed in the right of two Illustrious Kingdoms, and being so beneficial unto mankind, & so efficacious to maintain Unity; 
(*) Our Hopes did not dye with our late Sovereign, but still live in his Royal Issue, and of the most Sacred Queen & Martyr his Mother.  we cannot give over hope of your Favour, whom singular preservation in the womb of your glorious mother against the barbarous attempts of Heretical division that would have brought you to an immature end, shows to be by God's infinite wisdom perordained for some singular good of mankind, specially by your means to quench wars and dissensions, and to bestow the blessings of peace & union on this land. Your Title to the Crown of England springs from the peaceful conjunction of the two renowned Roses, which before were mortal enemies, and fought so many cruel fields, that if we consider the great effusion of blood, wherein each of them were bathed, we shall hardly discern the one from the other, by the diversity of colour.  
Your Majesty's Person is the root of a more happy union of two most glorious Kingdoms, by your Sacred Person combined in assured peace, which in the histores of former times are by no other marks more famously known, then by their mutual wars.  
Nothing remains to be added, for the full consummation of this Land's happiness, and your Majesty's immortal Glory, but the quenching of discord about religion, by bringing them back again to the root & matrice of the Catholic Church, 
Cyp. lib. 1. epist. 3. ad Cornel.  to the Chair of Peter the principal Sea; from which Sacerdotal and Sacred Unity springs, and to which perfidious Error hath no access. Whereby your Majesty shall extend the blessings of peace from this Island to the rest of Europe, from the the body unto the soul; and crown your temporal peace and felicity with eternal. For both which, not only I, but all of my profession, yea all Catholics, will offer unto Almighty God our daily prayers.  
FINIS.